On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 10:02 -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:42 PM, <kan.li...@intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Kan Liang <kan.li...@intel.com>
> >
> > Intrdouce "queue" option for coalesce getting and setting.
[...]
> > --- a/net/core/ethtool.c
> > +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c
> > @@ -1123,10 +1123,16 @@ static noinline_for_stack int
> > ethtool_get_coalesce(struct net_device *dev,
> > void __user *useraddr)
> > {
> > struct ethtool_coalesce coalesce = { .cmd = ETHTOOL_GCOALESCE };
> > + struct ethtool_coalesce tmp = { .queue = -1 };
> >
> > if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_coalesce)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > + if (copy_from_user(&tmp, useraddr, sizeof(coalesce)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + coalesce.queue = tmp.queue;
> > +
>
> Is this going to do what you expect when you have an older ethtool
> program? It seems to me that the older ethtool program will have the
> original coalesce struct without the new queue field, so when you do
[...]Indeed, it's not safe to extend UAPI structures like this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
