From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Gustavo Luiz Duarte <gustavold@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] netconsole: use the address family instead of the ipv6 flag
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 06:11:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <anXZJCDJtt-iTHy4@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGSyskWn8N-h=r-ePd23Kc19m3aiN5Bm04rYOhYPqV=roj4Y9g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Gustavo Luiz Duarte wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 4:55 PM Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 10:33:02PM +0100, Gustavo Luiz Duarte wrote:
> > > Now that we have the address family in inet_addr, use that and remove
> > > nt->ipv6.
> > >
> > > We no longer need netcons_local_ip_unset() to check that all bytes are
> > > zeroes, as that is now denoted by (family == AF_UNSPEC).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Luiz Duarte <gustavold@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/netconsole.c | 82 ++++++++++++++----------------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > > index d615a9256787..070bae7b4fd7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > > @@ -181,7 +181,6 @@ enum target_state {
> > > * local_mac (read-only)
> > > * @local_ip: Source IP address of the target (read-write).
> > > * @remote_ip: Destination IP address of the target (read-write).
> > > - * @ipv6: Whether the target addresses are IPv6 (read-write).
> > > * @local_port: Source UDP port of the target (read-write).
> > > * @remote_port: Destination UDP port of the target (read-write).
> > > * @remote_mac: Destination ethernet address of the target (read-write).
> > > @@ -213,7 +212,6 @@ struct netconsole_target {
> > > bool release;
> > > struct netpoll np;
> > > struct inet_addr local_ip, remote_ip;
> > > - bool ipv6;
> > > u16 local_port, remote_port;
> > > u8 remote_mac[ETH_ALEN];
> > > /* protected by target_list_lock; +1 gives scnprintf() room for its
> > > @@ -463,23 +461,6 @@ static int netcons_take_ipv4(struct netconsole_target *nt,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * Test whether the caller left nt->local_ip unset, so that
> > > - * netcons_netpoll_setup() should auto-populate it from the egress device.
> > > - *
> > > - * nt->local_ip is a union of __be32 (IPv4) and struct in6_addr (IPv6),
> > > - * so an IPv6 address whose first 4 bytes are zero (e.g. ::1, ::2,
> > > - * IPv4-mapped ::ffff:a.b.c.d) must not be tested via the IPv4 arm —
> > > - * doing so would misclassify a caller-supplied address as unset and
> > > - * silently overwrite it with whatever address the device exposes.
> > > - */
> > > -static bool netcons_local_ip_unset(const struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > > -{
> > > - if (nt->ipv6)
> > > - return ipv6_addr_any(&nt->local_ip.in6);
> > > - return !nt->local_ip.ip;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static int netcons_netpoll_setup(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > > {
> > > struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns;
> > > @@ -525,16 +506,13 @@ static int netcons_netpoll_setup(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > > rtnl_lock();
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (netcons_local_ip_unset(nt)) {
> > > - if (!nt->ipv6) {
> > > - err = netcons_take_ipv4(nt, ndev);
> > > - if (err)
> > > - goto put;
> > > - } else {
> > > + if (nt->local_ip.family == AF_UNSPEC) {
> > > + if (nt->remote_ip.family == AF_INET6)
> > > err = netcons_take_ipv6(nt, ndev);
> > > - if (err)
> > > - goto put;
> > > - }
> > > + else
> > > + err = netcons_take_ipv4(nt, ndev);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto put;
> >
> > nice, that is much clearer.
> >
> > > ip_overwritten = true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -716,22 +694,22 @@ static void netconsole_print_banner(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > > struct netpoll *np = &nt->np;
> > >
> > > np_info(np, "local port %d\n", nt->local_port);
> > > - if (nt->ipv6)
> > > + if (nt->local_ip.family == AF_INET6)
> > > np_info(np, "local IPv6 address %pI6c\n", &nt->local_ip.in6);
> > > else
> > > np_info(np, "local IPv4 address %pI4\n", &nt->local_ip.ip);
> >
> > Any chance it can be UNSPEC?
>
> Yes. Since this is a refactoring patch, I didn't want to change behavior here.
> So I kept the original behavior which is print "0.0.0.0".
>
> I was planning to send a separate patch set to change this:
> a) Print an empty string if unset (AF_UNSPEC).
Please add it to this patchset.
> b) Allow the user to write an empty string to local_ip or remote_ip to
> denote unset.
>
> This can be useful in case the user is reconfiguring the target and
> wants to make use of the local_ip automatic discovery logic from
> netconsole.
Cool, this could come later.
> > > @@ -755,7 +733,7 @@ static int netpoll_parse_ip_addr(const char *str, struct inet_addr *addr)
> > > in6_pton(str, len, (void *)&addr->in6, -1, &end) > 0 &&
> > > (!end || *end == 0 || *end == '\n')) {
> > > addr->family = AF_INET6;
> >
> > Why not setting family for for IPV4? In
> >
> > if (in4_pton(str, len, (void *)addr, -1, &end) > 0 &&
> > (!end || *end == 0 || *end == '\n'))
> > return 0;
>
> I did that in the previous patch. Here we are just changing the return code
> convention for netpoll_parse_ip_addr(). We no longer need to return the address
> family because it is now baked into inet_address. So instead of returning 0 for
> ipv4, 1 for ipv6, and -1 for failure, we just return -1 for failure and 0 for
> success.
Would it make sense to change it here, together and close to the
detection?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-07 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-05 21:33 [PATCH net-next 0/4] netconsole: validate a target's IP address configuration Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-05 21:33 ` [PATCH net-next 1/4] netconsole: add an address family to struct inet_addr Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-06 15:49 ` Breno Leitao
2026-08-07 11:21 ` Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-05 21:33 ` [PATCH net-next 2/4] netconsole: use the address family instead of the ipv6 flag Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-06 15:55 ` Breno Leitao
2026-08-07 12:00 ` Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-07 13:11 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2026-08-05 21:33 ` [PATCH net-next 3/4] netconsole: reject enabling a target with no remote IP address Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-06 15:58 ` Breno Leitao
2026-08-07 12:11 ` Gustavo Luiz Duarte
2026-08-05 21:33 ` [PATCH net-next 4/4] netconsole: reject a target mixing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses Gustavo Luiz Duarte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=anXZJCDJtt-iTHy4@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gustavold@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.