From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-178.mta1.migadu.com (out-178.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.178]) (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 17CD51AE877 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 11:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775041622; cv=none; b=GFg7fKTvU39jdnSI2FwkDamr2Q4NR5CCQEzMeCC3y00Df6t/l+CbnMCKFVL9tZ4Zh5FzaU4+lwP+yDZwpiueIPtFwgajgGGEwXvY/V+Mz0rkWIYeaDgLM33zfCgOnRPVS5E4i95i8aOcjF3EraUMCd9QcsajcJ9mLQqmR3kLytI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775041622; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1MTI6WHu4XlPWpmiNtRvqpHuLq0+7OEng2q0et2PCbc=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PJi14TLtv6zPQ4l0CGb4nka4o6lUrlILCpnCnYR1T1C6KlxB2TF67K22Z9aatvPtPZkOTx2FeCuG+2wr7Sq6LtvA31vJ70w3zs+6xCFoG9biQxgQd4Y/1Zy7kgMZDzWKRxfFjsgxM3eVHpFpwE1MtZ5jxvpN35nJPyThS1ziAMo= 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=bgLPNfQV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 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="bgLPNfQV" Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 13:06:05 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1775041619; 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=1MTI6WHu4XlPWpmiNtRvqpHuLq0+7OEng2q0et2PCbc=; b=bgLPNfQVXb22aWtLmMYHdPw8og76fnDwlmiAsE9kyh+f0YuyLtdYj2xNy2KIjOdyrQDbof vJAzAAqy5Lx1AOF5d6OqRy3sm7WQnLXUp+3fTxmlvQFrKab4N/keopgEc5aHHDWrZEJblx 0O1u6wiLbXJbEAVLR050rOUZHi3Vt38= 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: <4549f521-6395-4c26-921e-eaead7248a36@suse.de> References: <20260401092324.52266-1-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <20260401092324.52266-2-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <4549f521-6395-4c26-921e-eaead7248a36@suse.de> Message-ID: <85A635E3-DF1B-42CA-B552-729943E5C0D5@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 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 termina= l >> 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 >> --- > >Hi, > >This has not been reviewed by Felix=2E Felix provided his Reviewed-by tag= for the v1 which was completely different than this=2E > >Revisions of this patch: > >v3: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260329112313=2E17164-4-luka=2Egejak= @linux=2Edev/ > >v2: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260326154715=2E38405-4-luka=2Egejak= @linux=2Edev/ > >v1: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/20260324143503=2E187642-4-luka=2Egeja= k@linux=2Edev/ > >Are these contributions LLM/AI generated? I believe so based on the email= history=2E > >AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all/B2394A3= C-25FD-4CEA-8557-3E68F1F60357@linux=2Edev/ > >Another AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/all= /3831D599-655E-40B2-9E5D-9DF956013088@linux=2Edev/ > >Likely an AI generated review on a 1 year old HSR patch: https://lore=2Ek= ernel=2Eorg/all/DHFG26KI6L23=2E1YCOVQ5SSYMO5@linux=2Edev/ > >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 th= at developer must take full responsibility for the contribution which means= understanding it completely=2E > >https://docs=2Ekernel=2Eorg/process/coding-assistants=2Ehtml#signed-off-b= y-and-developer-certificate-of-origin > >Thanks, >Fernando=2E Hi Fernando, About the Reviewed-by tag, that was my mistake=2E I forgot to remove it=20 when rebasing=2E And about AI=2E I=E2=80=99ve been using it to help format= my=20 emails and translate them into English since it isn't my native=20 language=2E However, the technical logic and the code itself are my own=20 work, written without AI=2E Should I send v5, and if so, what should I=20 do besides stripping the Reviewed-by tag? I've read the documentation=20 on coding assistants you linked and will make sure to follow it on the next revision=2E Best regards, Luka Gejak