From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove redundant input checks in
 SIOCSIFTXQLEN case of dev_ifsioc
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:37:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUo-Rp5OhbtLVGOG_HPYZYuPXeqVMZ3ip=VMUJ42Cg4PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1532011832-6952-1-git-send-email-tariqt@mellanox.com>
 <CAM_iQpV-pcr5OaTN1N-iYQt+KiTKy6U590Z_1e4vv3vebUsMdA@mail.gmail.com> <b75a52cb-2c7b-2108-f256-1ebb93a82f7b@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        eranbe@mellanox.com
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:43136 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1728308AbeGWVk2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 23 Jul 2018 17:40:28 -0400
Received: by mail-pl0-f66.google.com with SMTP id o7-v6so704625plk.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b75a52cb-2c7b-2108-f256-1ebb93a82f7b@mellanox.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:29 AM Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19/07/2018 8:21 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:50 AM Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >> --- a/net/core/dev_ioctl.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/dev_ioctl.c
> >> @@ -282,14 +282,7 @@ static int dev_ifsioc(struct net *net, struct ifreq *ifr, unsigned int cmd)
> >>                  return dev_mc_del_global(dev, ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_data);
> >>
> >>          case SIOCSIFTXQLEN:
> >> -               if (ifr->ifr_qlen < 0)
> >> -                       return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Are you sure we can remove this if check too?
> >
> > The other one is safe to remove.
> >
>
> Hmm, let's see:
> dev_change_tx_queue_len gets unsigned long new_len, any negative value
> passed is interpreted as a very large number, then we test:
> if (new_len != (unsigned int)new_len)
>
> This test returns true if range of unsigned long is larger than range of
> unsigned int. AFAIK these ranges are Arch dependent and there is no
> guarantee this holds.
>

I am not sure either, you probably have to give it a test.
And at least, explain it in changelog if you still want to remove it.

Thanks.