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

Luka Gejak
2026-04-01T13:31:51Z

On April 1, 2026 2:05:49 PM GMT+02:00, Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de> 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 <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
>>
>

Hi Fernando,
These 2 patches were in the same patch series as 2 other patches.
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). 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. His email:
>I think that patches 1 and 2 need to go to net with a Fixes tag.
>They look like run of the mill bug fixes. 3 and 4 are logical
>fixes and change behavior so net-next makes sense.
>
>FWIW AI has something to say about patch 3, I did not investigate:
>https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329112313.17164-2-luka.gejak@linux.dev
>--
>pw-bot: cr