netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/7] smc: Use __sk_dst_get() and dst_dev_rcu() in smc_vlan_by

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: <a721adb9-caf1-48eb-b02e-8e5d1ce5f203@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:04:54 +0530
From: Mahanta Jambigi <mjambigi@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Sidraya Jayagond
 <sidraya@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>, Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/7] smc: Use __sk_dst_get() and dst_dev_rcu()
 in smc_vlan_by_tcpsk().

On 17/09/25 11:11 pm, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>> On 17/09/25 3:17 am, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>>> Note that the returned value of smc_vlan_by_tcpsk() is not used
>>>> in the caller.
>>>
>>> I see that smc_vlan_by_tcpsk() is called in net/smc/af_smc.c file & the
>>> return value is used in if block to decide whether the ini->vlan_id is
>>> set or not. In failure case, the return value has an impact on the CLC
>>> handshake.
>>
>> I guess Kuniyuki wanted to say the precise error (-ENODEV or
>> -ENOTCONN) was not used,
>> because his patch is now only returning -ENODEV
> 
> Yes, that was my intention.

Understood. We treat both errors as a single error here.