From: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>
To: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev>,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fmaurer@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net: hsr: require valid EOT supervision TLV
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:44:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8cf382ce-b110-4758-9de4-8944ba980ca3@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7540A920-76E7-4768-9E62-6666D0FECFA9@linux.dev>
On 4/1/26 3:31 PM, Luka Gejak wrote:
> 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.
>>
This is not addressing my concern. I am not complaining that it went
into a separate series. That makes sense. The v3 version of the patch
"net: hsr: require valid EOT supervision TLV" is now something
completely different but the commit message is the same.
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260329112313.17164-4-luka.gejak@linux.dev/
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
message.
>> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-01 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-01 9:23 [PATCH net-next v4 0/2] net: hsr: strict supervision TLV validation luka.gejak
2026-04-01 9:23 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net: hsr: require valid EOT supervision TLV luka.gejak
2026-04-01 9:52 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-01 11:06 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 12:05 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-01 13:31 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 13:44 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera [this message]
2026-04-01 14:19 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 17:05 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 23:30 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-02 6:34 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 14:47 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-01 16:59 ` Luka Gejak
2026-04-01 23:53 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-04-01 9:23 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] net: hsr: reject unresolved interlink ifindex luka.gejak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8cf382ce-b110-4758-9de4-8944ba980ca3@suse.de \
--to=fmancera@suse.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fmaurer@redhat.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=luka.gejak@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox