On 12/14/18 12:54 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:42:21 -0700, David Ahern wrote: >> On 12/14/18 12:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> Oh, so we'd use the STRICT checking in doit for the first time? I >>> better send that rename patch then.. >> >> IMHO, no. The flag is for older userspace that could be sending junk in >> the request. All new code should do strict checking without the flag set >> to ensure only proper requests are handled. > > I'm going back and forth on that in my head. IDK if new user space > shouldn't be able to do a get request on an old kernel which doesn't > understand some of the attributes. Grey area.. perhaps it needs to be > decided on case by case basis? For my stats work I think returning too > many stats if what is affectively a filter is not understood may be a > good option. Perhaps for fdb get it makes more sense to error out. > hmm.. >
I am referring to new code as in what Roopa is doing here -- adding a whole new feature (support for RTM_GETNEIGH for PF_BRIDGE). There is no support today, so no way it impacts existing userspace. In cases where there is a handler for the operation, then, yes, the strict flag is needed for any new kernel side filtering to ensure the request is parsed properly.
