Hi Aaron, Thanks for looking at the series.
> How did you find these issues? Were they found by code review, static > analysis, hitting the issues in production? By code review, done with an AI assistant (Claude Code, as the Assisted-by tag on each patch says). The review went through the userspace datapath code that reaches packet headers through the layer offsets, looking for places that read or write a header without checking that the packet holds it. Each candidate was then confirmed with the test that comes with its patch, run under AddressSanitizer on the current code. None of them came from static analysis tools or from a production system. >> Each patch mail carries its commit exactly as git format-patch wrote >> it, ... > > This paragraph is unneeded. > >> Please apply the patches as they are (git am), so that they keep their >> author; change anything you like in review. > > This instruction isn't needed - maintainers do our best to NEVER lose > attribution. Understood, thanks. I will leave both out from now on. > Please do not use the public CI infrastructure as your testing ground. You are right, and I am sorry for the noise. The v2 and v3 failures (a clang-analyze warning, then a sparse error, both in new tests) would have shown up in a run of my own. From now on I will run every version through GitHub Actions on my own fork first, and post it only once that run passes. Best regards, Alejandro _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
