From: David Laight
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:45:39 +
> Provided you've got the length of the user's buffer the compat code
> ought to be trivial (if tedious).
Wireless guys had to deal with a similar problem with nl80211.
You don't know who is going to get the message when you build it,
bec
From: Kevin Cernekee
> Sent: 21 January 2017 00:05
> Several of the xfrm netlink and setsockopt() interfaces are not usable
> from a 32-bit binary running on a 64-bit kernel due to struct padding
> differences. This has been the case for many, many years[0]. This
> patch series deprecates the bro
From: Steffen Klassert
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:35:17 +0100
> So this creates new incompatibilities what is another argument against
> this approach. If you really need this, try to implement a full compat
> layer. I think this is the only sane solution for this.
A full compat layer is the only
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:05:03PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> Several of the xfrm netlink and setsockopt() interfaces are not usable
> from a 32-bit binary running on a 64-bit kernel due to struct padding
> differences. This has been the case for many, many years[0]. This
> patch series depre
Several of the xfrm netlink and setsockopt() interfaces are not usable
from a 32-bit binary running on a 64-bit kernel due to struct padding
differences. This has been the case for many, many years[0]. This
patch series deprecates the broken netlink messages and replaces them
with packed structs
