Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-18 Thread David Miller
From: David Ahern Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:57:33 -0600 > On 10/16/15 2:02 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:06:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: >>> No, it's definitely not OK, because lwtunnel support exists in >>> Linus's tree. >>> >>> And tools should be able to work on all ker

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread David Ahern
On 10/16/15 2:02 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:06:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: No, it's definitely not OK, because lwtunnel support exists in Linus's tree. And tools should be able to work on all kernels where lwtunnel support is available. You can consider the lwtunnels

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Jiri Benc
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:40:11 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > I would suggest you simply add a description to the rfc via the errata > process here: > > The original cover letter should be enough to post there. I am also not > sure if people do re

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Hannes Frederic Sowa
Hi, On Fri, Oct 16, 2015, at 10:08, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > > I think his point is that you'll be making changes to an RFC specified > > protocol. > > The RFC is only informational, it has never became an Internet > standard (under the RF

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Thomas Graf
On 10/16/15 at 10:02am, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:06:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > > No, it's definitely not OK, because lwtunnel support exists in > > Linus's tree. > > > > And tools should be able to work on all kernels where lwtunnel support > > is available. > > You ca

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Jiri Benc
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > I think his point is that you'll be making changes to an RFC specified > protocol. The RFC is only informational, it has never became an Internet standard (under the RFC terms). And no other OS picked it up. Keeping kernel uAPI docume

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Jiri Benc
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:06:44 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > No, it's definitely not OK, because lwtunnel support exists in > Linus's tree. > > And tools should be able to work on all kernels where lwtunnel support > is available. You can consider the lwtunnels feature as not finished in the c

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread David Miller
From: Jiri Benc Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:49:51 +0200 > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:07:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> Do you plan to update rfc3549, too? :} > > No. > > While I think we need to have a detailed documentation on netlink, > I believe it should reside in Documentation/ inside

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Jiri Benc
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:07:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > Do you plan to update rfc3549, too? :} No. While I think we need to have a detailed documentation on netlink, I believe it should reside in Documentation/ inside the kernel tree to be easily updated, not in an outside document coll

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread David Miller
From: Jiri Benc Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:39:45 +0200 > I'm targeting net-next only and don't intend to bring this to older > kernels. The patchset is designed in the way that it's possible to > detect that the kernel does not support strict attribute checking. When > this is detected, the tools

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-16 Thread Jiri Benc
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:50:07 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > Although we are probably stuck with this, it was probably a bad idea > to have this behavior as the default. I agree. But we have what we have. > Better would have been to always error on unrecognized attributes, and > in the ACK giv

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-15 Thread David Miller
From: Jiri Benc Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:39:05 +0200 > When sending a netlink request (NLM_F_REQUEST), any unknown attributes are > ignored. This behavior is problematic in some situations. For example if the > user asks for a particular config, the request finishes successfully, yet > the confi

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-15 Thread Hannes Frederic Sowa
Jiri Benc writes: > Before using this new facility, the application should check whether it is > supported by the kernel. This is done by sending a NLMSG_NOOP message with > NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_STRICT | NLM_F_ACK flags set. If the returned message > has NLM_F_STRICT set, the kernel does support

[RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option

2015-10-15 Thread Jiri Benc
When sending a netlink request (NLM_F_REQUEST), any unknown attributes are ignored. This behavior is problematic in some situations. For example if the user asks for a particular config, the request finishes successfully, yet the configuraton applied does not work because some of the attributes are