Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] netconsole: reject enabling a target with no remote IP address
Gustavo Luiz Duarte <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGSyskUbYM9tK08AsUw9TQagv4Jj2y9ioXH9OrRtAyRzHSnu7A@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 4:58 PM Breno Leitao <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 10:33:03PM +0100, Gustavo Luiz Duarte wrote: > > The command-line path already requires a remote address, but if a user > > creates a dynamic target and enables it without setting a remote > > address, we currently try sending netconsole traffic to "0.0.0.0". > > > > Refuse to enable a target if the remote address is unset. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Luiz Duarte <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/net/netconsole.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c > > index 070bae7b4fd7..a41b0a5ce64f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c > > @@ -471,6 +471,12 @@ static int netcons_netpoll_setup(struct netconsole_target *nt) > > int err; > > > > rtnl_lock(); > > + if (nt->remote_ip.family == AF_UNSPEC) { > > + np_err(np, "remote IP address not configured, aborting\n"); > > + err = -EDESTADDRREQ; > > + goto unlock; > > + } > > Why not doing it before the rtnl lock? Oh, you are right, there is no reason for holding the lock here. Thanks for pointing it out. I will fix it in v2.