On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:03 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > }
> >
> > + if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using
> > TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
> > + a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
> > + }
> > +
> > return a;
> >
>
>
> I think it would make a lot more sense to just reject the entry than
> changing it underneath the user to a default value. Least element of
> suprise.
I fear that would break existing (bad) users ?!? This way, such users
are notified they are doing something uncorrect, but still continue to
work.
The patch can be changed to reject bad actions, if there is agreement,
but it would not look as the safest way to me.
Thanks,
Paolo
