From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 187602FFF8F for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775055409; cv=none; b=YwtAXtS3aqIOTT4DGwkvScPBH1f3dwnqno4P+ID5WdV5XrN5L+G9R0gAzNwpGNpJOriu/SsLtU2TjpQsvkVmsZ1j+0W+D1wu/NZckrts9KkLgcA6lut8zAUG9urY/YKvCq1CRXKR1ZAhhdzTjUozNCqC2fx4nPI//x9kOqRQ8Mg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775055409; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zmAIsh5TPGPWyaH9h1u8K4jk5A9WaffOj9BvsQ5Dack=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JZbYXIzsgShFT8IJ+KvG+NZNYihbieacvWJqpp4maWc5P+A06bGA+CJzmbC8uwzBp2oN82ZbJlFTJCheweAS8GuBzsn+RxLxcZIfwSUY00zlff1YP8ALpA5W4a/t+tXdY2Fvv4/twYK8qsbGjE6rNvqX+8UPKyXpm+F7dy2/kE8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=hw/eBYEO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="hw/eBYEO" Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:19:12 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1775055405; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zmAIsh5TPGPWyaH9h1u8K4jk5A9WaffOj9BvsQ5Dack=; b=hw/eBYEOa6ANBvKQ6dQqLqdn50aNhBEEfAswHqtoFJwkgq4Q2Znu9WLyLXv46lrxjDMDS7 7M7PybEWiuW0sI9BgAW9QQk6qjzLayTARCZBNS91Hs6X3qtChGS7tB6wPxnRuge3szD38r w9MCkVVkAe8D0APflPTaHYFMYCm6VD8= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Luka Gejak To: Fernando Fernandez Mancera , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fmaurer@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_=5BPATCH_net-next_v4_1/2=5D_net=3A_hs?= =?US-ASCII?Q?r=3A_require_valid_EOT_supervision_TLV?= In-Reply-To: <8cf382ce-b110-4758-9de4-8944ba980ca3@suse.de> References: <20260401092324.52266-1-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <20260401092324.52266-2-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <4549f521-6395-4c26-921e-eaead7248a36@suse.de> <85A635E3-DF1B-42CA-B552-729943E5C0D5@linux.dev> <1a22150a-0f4c-412a-9789-ece497d1c92c@suse.de> <7540A920-76E7-4768-9E62-6666D0FECFA9@linux.dev> <8cf382ce-b110-4758-9de4-8944ba980ca3@suse.de> Message-ID: <72395245-A435-453C-925B-93417BA845F6@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On April 1, 2026 3:44:16 PM GMT+02:00, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: >On 4/1/26 3:31 PM, Luka Gejak wrote: >> On April 1, 2026 2:05:49 PM GMT+02:00, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: >>> On 4/1/26 1:06 PM, Luka Gejak wrote: >>>> On April 1, 2026 11:52:02 AM GMT+02:00, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: >>>>> On 4/1/26 11:23 AM, luka=2Egejak@linux=2Edev wrote: >>>>>> From: Luka Gejak >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Supervision frames are only valid if terminated with a zero-length = EOT >>>>>> TLV=2E The current check fails to reject non-EOT entries as the ter= minal >>>>>> TLV, potentially allowing malformed supervision traffic=2E >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Fix this by strictly requiring the terminal TLV to be HSR_TLV_EOT >>>>>> with a length of zero=2E >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Felix Maurer >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luka Gejak >>>>>> --- >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi, >>>>>=20 >>>>> This has not been reviewed by Felix=2E Felix provided his Reviewed-b= y tag for the v1 which was completely different than this=2E >>>>>=20 >>>>> Revisions of this patch: >>>>>=20 >>>>> v3: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260329112313=2E17164-4-luka=2E= gejak@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> v2: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260326154715=2E38405-4-luka=2E= gejak@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> v1: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260324143503=2E187642-4-luka= =2Egejak@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> Are these contributions LLM/AI generated? I believe so based on the = email history=2E >>>>>=20 >>>>> AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/B2= 394A3C-25FD-4CEA-8557-3E68F1F60357@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> Another AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eor= g/all/3831D599-655E-40B2-9E5D-9DF956013088@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> Likely an AI generated review on a 1 year old HSR patch: https://lor= e=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/DHFG26KI6L23=2E1YCOVQ5SSYMO5@linux=2Edev/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> If these are indeed, AI generated contributions or reviews they shou= ld be disclosed beforehand=2E Also there is the Assisted-by: tag=2E Also no= te that developer must take full responsibility for the contribution which = means understanding it completely=2E >>>>>=20 >>>>> https://docs=2Ekernel=2Eorg/process/coding-assistants=2Ehtml#signed-= off-by-and-developer-certificate-of-origin >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Fernando=2E >>>>=20 >>>> Hi Fernando, >>>> About the Reviewed-by tag, that was my mistake=2E I forgot to remove = it >>>> when rebasing=2E And about AI=2E I=E2=80=99ve been using it to help f= ormat my >>>> emails and translate them into English since it isn't my native >>>> language=2E However, the technical logic and the code itself are my o= wn >>>> work, written without AI=2E >>>=20 >>> So I don't think this change in code is related to rebasing at all=2E = The code in this function is identical when comparing net and net-next tree= so why a rebase would cause such change in the code? Am I missing somethin= g here? >>>=20 >>> In addition to that, the new logic does not make any sense=2E What mot= ivated the diff from v3 to v4? All that information is missing=2E >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Fernando=2E >>>=20 >>> Should I send v5, and if so, what should I >>>> do besides stripping the Reviewed-by tag? I've read the documentation >>>> on coding assistants you linked and will make sure to follow it on th= e >>>> next revision=2E >>>> Best regards, >>>> Luka Gejak >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> Hi Fernando, >> These 2 patches were in the same patch series as 2 other patches=2E >> Then, when rebasing to edit 3rd patch in original patch series(3/4), I >> forgot to remove the Reviewed-by tag(I ran git commit --amend >> --no-edit)=2E Then I separated 1st 2 and 2nd 2 patches into separate >> series (one for net and other for net-next) because I was instructed >> to do so by Jakub Kicinski=2E His email: >>> I think that patches 1 and 2 need to go to net with a Fixes tag=2E >>> They look like run of the mill bug fixes=2E 3 and 4 are logical >>> fixes and change behavior so net-next makes sense=2E >>>=20 > >This is not addressing my concern=2E I am not complaining that it went in= to a separate series=2E That makes sense=2E The v3 version of the patch "ne= t: hsr: require valid EOT supervision TLV" is now something completely diff= erent but the commit message is the same=2E > >v3: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260329112313=2E17164-4-luka=2Egejak= @linux=2Edev/ > >I could guess the reason is that in order to make sure the last TLV is a = EOT TLV with 0 length but all that explanation is missing on the commit mes= sage=2E > >>> FWIW AI has something to say about patch 3, I did not investigate: >>> https://sashiko=2Edev/#/patchset/20260329112313=2E17164-2-luka=2Egejak= @linux=2Edev >>> --=20 >>> pw-bot: cr > Hi Fernando, I apologize for the confusion=2E Now I get what you were talking about=2E The commit message in v4 didn't reflect the logic change from v3=2E I=20 will update commit message accordingly=2E The motivation for the "TLV=20 walker" refactor in v4 was to fix two issues in v3: linearization/ paged frames and forward compatibility=2E Best regards, Luka Gejak