From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-189.mta0.migadu.com (out-189.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.189]) (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 01C0342882D for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 13:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775050314; cv=none; b=LG5CwQSdX7evZgS0NQcfav20MFEVC+9EQkdxnsRl//mTMM0v4zB1fVf41ByH8LZ2fegHRJ6LX3RHrLAOYWG/vIGIhnEo+Mpv5Mt0kfU9Bz7Nm5Wb3jpnoO8EIvJwmXM1+YCJ0XEgapGCczf5p8OhD60pREd69m4LpDGvWV2DD9I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775050314; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7WSD0xVpd+t5WYgcMNTEAF0v1OnqUTar5TxLkrMoM9o=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qbzHzwQVrQ1AL57tI85WItqtqywbnACCnYgeU+Vcj1c6wkIDQIU2UvA73weQoW64t8g2GSJ9TZPWYA+t+59rvn5cRgjEHEighX/NY5F536Q3aVVwJt10dW1qcsA/uVEpk3VweLVOIxl6dRp68EK7sPZlbayXZyH27Z3eLrrknRg= 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=mYgSyRWG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.189 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="mYgSyRWG" Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:31:42 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1775050310; 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=7WSD0xVpd+t5WYgcMNTEAF0v1OnqUTar5TxLkrMoM9o=; b=mYgSyRWGLJ0v75Jv6zgDKtWWqH5XkN7YHbkBbiVnjDriAecS/HaT59DqCBjAjwBrXEFmwb PMMqfZnfHEzB5y7lqZrQlNSJMq3LU+5AeDuFkgnYU2Vn79atpx28g7v7dJdwePmBJIzcKi npXbG2jBH/MH4JOC6urJP1ea9sRlhxI= 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: <1a22150a-0f4c-412a-9789-ece497d1c92c@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> Message-ID: <7540A920-76E7-4768-9E62-6666D0FECFA9@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 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 EO= T >>>> TLV=2E The current check fails to reject non-EOT entries as the termi= nal >>>> 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-by = 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=2Ege= jak@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> v2: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260326154715=2E38405-4-luka=2Ege= jak@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> v1: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260324143503=2E187642-4-luka=2Eg= ejak@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> Are these contributions LLM/AI generated? I believe so based on the em= ail history=2E >>>=20 >>> AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/B239= 4A3C-25FD-4CEA-8557-3E68F1F60357@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> Another AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/= all/3831D599-655E-40B2-9E5D-9DF956013088@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> Likely an AI generated review on a 1 year old HSR patch: https://lore= =2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/DHFG26KI6L23=2E1YCOVQ5SSYMO5@linux=2Edev/ >>>=20 >>> If these are indeed, AI generated contributions or reviews they should= be disclosed beforehand=2E Also there is the Assisted-by: tag=2E Also note= that developer must take full responsibility for the contribution which me= ans understanding it completely=2E >>>=20 >>> https://docs=2Ekernel=2Eorg/process/coding-assistants=2Ehtml#signed-of= f-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 for= mat 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 own >> work, written without AI=2E > >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 something h= ere? > >In addition to that, the new logic does not make any sense=2E What motiva= ted the diff from v3 to v4? All that information is missing=2E > >Thanks, >Fernando=2E > >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 the >> next revision=2E >> Best regards, >> Luka Gejak >>=20 > Hi Fernando, These 2 patches were in the same patch series as 2 other patches=2E=20 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=20 --no-edit)=2E Then I separated 1st 2 and 2nd 2 patches into separate=20 series (one for net and other for net-next) because I was instructed=20 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 > >FWIW AI has something to say about patch 3, I did not investigate: >https://sashiko=2Edev/#/patchset/20260329112313=2E17164-2-luka=2Egejak@li= nux=2Edev >--=20 >pw-bot: cr