netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net/hsr: add protocol version to fill

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250924164041.3f938cab@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:40:41 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ján Václav <jvaclav@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net/hsr: add protocol version to fill_info
 output

On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 13:21:32 +0200 Ján Václav wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 2:06 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:37:45 +0200 Jan Vaclav wrote:  
> > >       if (hsr->prot_version == PRP_V1)
> > >               proto = HSR_PROTOCOL_PRP;
> > > +     if (nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_HSR_VERSION, hsr->prot_version))
> > > +             goto nla_put_failure;  
> >
> > Looks like configuration path does not allow setting version if proto
> > is PRP. Should we add an else before the if? since previous if is
> > checking for PRP already
> >  
> 
> The way HSR configuration is currently handled seems very confusing to
> me, because it allows setting the protocol version, but for PRP_V1
> only as a byproduct of setting the protocol to PRP. If you configure
> an interface with (proto = PRP, version = PRP_V1), it will fail, which
> seems wrong to me, considering this is the end result of configuring
> only with proto = PRP anyways.

I'm not very familiar with HSR or PRP. But The PRP_V1 which has value
of 3 looks like a kernel-internal hack. Or does the protocol actually
specify value 3 to mean PRP?

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the code.
The version is for HSR because PRP only has one version, there's no
ambiguity.

But again, I'm just glancing at the code I could be wrong..