netdev - Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH net-next] udp_tunnel: Fix typo using netdev_WARN instead of netdev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250904184801.GL372207@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 19:48:01 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
Cc: dsahern@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH net-next] udp_tunnel: Fix typo using
 netdev_WARN instead of netdev_warn

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 07:15:57PM +0530, ALOK TIWARI wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2025 2:48 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:57:12PM -0700, Alok Tiwari wrote:
> > > There is no condition being tested, so it should be netdev_warn,
> > > not netdev_WARN. Using netdev_WARN here is a typo or misuse.
> > 
> > Hi Alok,
> > 
> > I agree that using netdev_warn() seems more appropriate.
> > 
> > But doesn't the difference between netdev_warn() and netdev_WARN()
> > lie in the output they produce rather than testing of a condition
> > (or not)?
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Thanks Simon, agreed, I understand your point.
> 
> since WARN() triggers backtrace and dumps the file name
> it is not require here. The failure in udp_tunnel_nic_register()
> should just be treated as an expected operation failure, not as a kernel bug
> 
> Should I send a v2 with an updated commit message
> (remove "condition being tested"), or drop these changes?”
> 
> 
> Thanks for your review.

Thanks Alok,

I think the change itself is good.
And I'd resubmit with an updated commit message.