Message ID | 20240930131214.3771313-1-leitao@debian.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: netconsole refactoring and warning fix | expand |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 06:11:59 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > To address these issues, the following steps were taken: > > * Breaking down write_ext_msg() into smaller functions with clear scopes > * Improving readability and reasoning about the code > * Simplifying and clarifying naming conventions > > Warning Fix > ----------- > > The warning occurred when there was insufficient buffer space to append > userdata. While this scenario is acceptable (as userdata can be sent in a > separate packet later), the kernel was incorrectly raising a warning. A > one-line fix has been implemented to resolve this issue. > > A self-test was developed to write messages of every possible length > This test will be submitted in a separate patchset Makes sense in general, but why isn't the fix sent to net first, and then once the trees converge (follow Thursday) we can apply the refactoring and improvements on top? The false positive warning went into 6.9 if I'm checking correctly.
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 05:29:50PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 06:11:59 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > > To address these issues, the following steps were taken: > > > > * Breaking down write_ext_msg() into smaller functions with clear scopes > > * Improving readability and reasoning about the code > > * Simplifying and clarifying naming conventions > > > > Warning Fix > > ----------- > > > > The warning occurred when there was insufficient buffer space to append > > userdata. While this scenario is acceptable (as userdata can be sent in a > > separate packet later), the kernel was incorrectly raising a warning. A > > one-line fix has been implemented to resolve this issue. > > > > A self-test was developed to write messages of every possible length > > This test will be submitted in a separate patchset > > Makes sense in general, but why isn't the fix sent to net first, > and then once the trees converge (follow Thursday) we can apply > the refactoring and improvements on top? > > The false positive warning went into 6.9 if I'm checking correctly. Correct. I probably should have separated the fix from the refactor. For context, I was pursuing the warning, and the code was hard to read, so, I was refactoring the code while narrowing down the warning. But you are correct, the warning is in 6.9+ kernels. But, keep in mind that the warning is very hard to trigger, basically the length of userdata and the message needs to be certain size to trigger it.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:50:13 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > > Makes sense in general, but why isn't the fix sent to net first, > > and then once the trees converge (follow Thursday) we can apply > > the refactoring and improvements on top? > > > > The false positive warning went into 6.9 if I'm checking correctly. > > Correct. I probably should have separated the fix from the refactor. > > For context, I was pursuing the warning, and the code was hard to read, > so, I was refactoring the code while narrowing down the warning. > > But you are correct, the warning is in 6.9+ kernels. But, keep in mind > that the warning is very hard to trigger, basically the length of userdata > and the message needs to be certain size to trigger it. Understood, and to be honest it's a bit of an efficiency thing on maintainer side - we try to avoid shades of gray as much as possible because debates on what is and isn't a fix can consume a ton of time. So in networking we push people to send the fixes for net, even if triggering the problem isn't very likely.