Re: [PATCH rpld 2/6] send: make sure we check on scope id usage

Re: [PATCH rpld 2/6] send: make sure we check on scope id usage

[Alexander Aring]

Hi Stefan,,

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
>
> It fails on my machine and likely fails on others, better
> check for it.
> ---
>  send.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/send.c b/send.c
> index 97c566d..d026f6a 100644
> --- a/send.c
> +++ b/send.c
> @@ -53,11 +53,9 @@ static int really_send(int sock, const struct iface *iface,
>         pkt_info->ipi6_ifindex = iface->ifindex;
>         memcpy(&pkt_info->ipi6_addr, iface->ifaddr_src, sizeof(struct in6_addr));
>
> -#if 1
> -//#ifdef HAVE_SIN6_SCOPE_ID
> +#ifdef HAVE_SIN6_SCOPE_ID

This HAVE_ stuff is from autoconf where I took the code (radvd), so
this will mostly end in #ifdef 0 because we use meson now and don't
ask me how to check on this in meson but it's simple I think. :-)
I think we can remove this code and see if we break something. The
point here radvd is ported to BSD, Linux, etc. and this is some system
thing. _Maybe_ it is really not necessary for Linux systems _because_
we set above "pkt_info->ipi6_ifindex = iface->ifindex;" which is maybe
enough on a Linux system... but it could also be to solve some UAPI
messup.... just remove it. In a scope of link-local we must set the
interface somehow, I am not sure how the correct API works here, as I
said... look if it makes problems. Sorry but it means: I am too lazy
too look it up why this is necessary in radvd (git blame is maybe
enough?).

Note: That it compiles on my Linux machine and not on your Linux
machine, means there is something in Linux API headers.

- Alex

Re: [PATCH rpld 0/6] Mixed bag of rpld patches

[Alexander Aring]

Hi Stefan,

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting
> to look into rpld and playing around with it.
>
> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef
> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally
> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity.
> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address
> sanitizer and coverity scan.
>
> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on
> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you.
>

I can't deal with the github gui! I click always the wrong buttons
there. Thanks for setting up this travis support, does it work like
wpan-tools to push it into branch "coverity_scan"?
I would like to review patches via mail, what do you prefer? What is
the procedure when somebody submits pull requests on github then,
somebody of us send it via mail? Sounds more work... Can we do both as
"whatever you like"? Can github somehow send pull request via github
to this mailinglist? Would be nice to have something to connect the
whole github thing to a mailinglist and you can control it with that
as well... at least the commenting system but I think this isn't
possible and the new kids wants all pull request via github gui. We
didn't answered this question for wpan-tools as well and I once
clicked the "merge" button (actually not by accident).

Also how we do that with signed off by thing? I can still fix it
somehow what I did there...

- Alex

Re: [PATCH rpld 0/6] Mixed bag of rpld patches

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On 21.12.19 00:06, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting
>> to look into rpld and playing around with it.
>>
>> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef
>> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally
>> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity.
>> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address
>> sanitizer and coverity scan.
>>
>> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on
>> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you.
>>
> 
> I can't deal with the github gui! I click always the wrong buttons
> there. Thanks for setting up this travis support, does it work like
> wpan-tools to push it into branch "coverity_scan"?

Yes

> I would like to review patches via mail, what do you prefer? What is
> the procedure when somebody submits pull requests on github then,
> somebody of us send it via mail? Sounds more work... Can we do both as
> "whatever you like"? Can github somehow send pull request via github
> to this mailinglist? Would be nice to have something to connect the
> whole github thing to a mailinglist and you can control it with that
> as well... at least the commenting system but I think this isn't
> possible and the new kids wants all pull request via github gui. We
> didn't answered this question for wpan-tools as well and I once
> clicked the "merge" button (actually not by accident).

I do not mind any of the two methods. Getting Github and mailing lists 
working together is to big of a task on its own for such a small project 
to tackle in my opinion.

Given the low volumes of patches we are seeing on wpan-tools and maybe 
also rpld I would not mind if we say that we accept both ways. Mailing 
patches as well as pull requests. That would ease the contributions for 
some people I hope. And while it puts a bit more burden on us it should 
not be to hard given the low volume.

> 
> Also how we do that with signed off by thing? I can still fix it
> somehow what I did there...

Signed off by makes only sense if we have a document descriping what we 
mean by it. If we want it and use the one from the kernel we need to 
communicate this clearly. If not, the sign offs are off no use.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [PATCH rpld 0/6] Mixed bag of rpld patches

[Alexander Aring]

Hi Stefan,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:58:13PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting
> to look into rpld and playing around with it.
> 
> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef
> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally
> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity.
> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address
> sanitizer and coverity scan.
> 
> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on
> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you.
> 
> Stefan Schmidt (6):
>   build: test various names for our lua dependency
>   send: make sure we check on scope id usage
>   ci: travis: initial setup for CI testing with Travis
>   config : fix leaks on error paths
>   socket: make sure we close our socket if setsockopt() fails
>   send: ensure we free the buffer after sending the message

I tested the patch series and so far it still compiles on my machine.

Reviewed-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>

on all patches.

- Alex

Re: [PATCH rpld 0/6] Mixed bag of rpld patches

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On 09.01.20 23:38, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:58:13PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting
>> to look into rpld and playing around with it.
>>
>> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef
>> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally
>> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity.
>> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address
>> sanitizer and coverity scan.
>>
>> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on
>> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you.
>>
>> Stefan Schmidt (6):
>>    build: test various names for our lua dependency
>>    send: make sure we check on scope id usage
>>    ci: travis: initial setup for CI testing with Travis
>>    config : fix leaks on error paths
>>    socket: make sure we close our socket if setsockopt() fails
>>    send: ensure we free the buffer after sending the message
> 
> I tested the patch series and so far it still compiles on my machine.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> 
> on all patches.

Thanks. I landed them in master now.

regards
Stefan Schmidt