Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net: hsr: require valid EOT supervision TLV

Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-01T12:06:25Z

On 4/1/26 1:06 PM, Luka Gejak wrote:
> On April 1, 2026 11:52:02 AM GMT+02:00, Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de> wrote:
>> On 4/1/26 11:23 AM, luka.gejak@linux.dev wrote:
>>> From: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev>
>>>
>>> Supervision frames are only valid if terminated with a zero-length EOT
>>> TLV. The current check fails to reject non-EOT entries as the terminal
>>> TLV, potentially allowing malformed supervision traffic.
>>>
>>> Fix this by strictly requiring the terminal TLV to be HSR_TLV_EOT
>>> with a length of zero.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Felix Maurer <fmaurer@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev>
>>> ---
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This has not been reviewed by Felix. Felix provided his Reviewed-by tag for the v1 which was completely different than this.
>>
>> Revisions of this patch:
>>
>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260329112313.17164-4-luka.gejak@linux.dev/
>>
>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260326154715.38405-4-luka.gejak@linux.dev/
>>
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260324143503.187642-4-luka.gejak@linux.dev/
>>
>> Are these contributions LLM/AI generated? I believe so based on the email history.
>>
>> AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore.kernel.org/all/B2394A3C-25FD-4CEA-8557-3E68F1F60357@linux.dev/
>>
>> Another AI generated review on rtl8723bs: https://lore.kernel.org/all/3831D599-655E-40B2-9E5D-9DF956013088@linux.dev/
>>
>> Likely an AI generated review on a 1 year old HSR patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/DHFG26KI6L23.1YCOVQ5SSYMO5@linux.dev/
>>
>> If these are indeed, AI generated contributions or reviews they should be disclosed beforehand. Also there is the Assisted-by: tag. Also note that developer must take full responsibility for the contribution which means understanding it completely.
>>
>> https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html#signed-off-by-and-developer-certificate-of-origin
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fernando.
>
> Hi Fernando,
> About the Reviewed-by tag, that was my mistake. I forgot to remove it
> when rebasing. And about AI. I’ve been using it to help format my
> emails and translate them into English since it isn't my native
> language. However, the technical logic and the code itself are my own
> work, written without AI.

So I don't think this change in code is related to rebasing at all. 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 here?

In addition to that, the new logic does not make any sense. What
motivated the diff from v3 to v4? All that information is missing.

Thanks,
Fernando.

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.
> Best regards,
> Luka Gejak
>