Adding Kuniyuki.
On 3/8/25 10:40 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> @@ -931,10 +932,67 @@ int netdev_nl_bind_rx_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
> genl_info *info)
> return err;
> }
>
> -/* stub */
> int netdev_nl_bind_tx_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
> {
> - return 0;
> + struct net_devmem_dmabuf_binding *binding;
> + struct list_head *sock_binding_list;
> + struct net_device *netdev;
> + u32 ifindex, dmabuf_fd;
> + struct sk_buff *rsp;
> + int err = 0;
> + void *hdr;
> +
> + if (GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK(info, NETDEV_A_DEV_IFINDEX) ||
> + GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK(info, NETDEV_A_DMABUF_FD))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ifindex = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[NETDEV_A_DEV_IFINDEX]);
> + dmabuf_fd = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[NETDEV_A_DMABUF_FD]);
> +
> + sock_binding_list = genl_sk_priv_get(&netdev_nl_family,
> + NETLINK_CB(skb).sk);
> + if (IS_ERR(sock_binding_list))
> + return PTR_ERR(sock_binding_list);
> +
> + rsp = genlmsg_new(GENLMSG_DEFAULT_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!rsp)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + hdr = genlmsg_iput(rsp, info);
> + if (!hdr) {
> + err = -EMSGSIZE;
> + goto err_genlmsg_free;
> + }
> +
> + rtnl_lock();
The above could possibly be a rtnl_net_lock(), right?
(not strictily related to this series) The same for the existing
rtnl_lock() call in netdev-genl.c, right?
/P
