On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:54:43 -0600
David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/25/18 11:51 PM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:37:41 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> >> For ifaddrmsg ifa_flags aligns with ifi_type which is set by kernel side
> >> so this should be ok.
> >
> > Does the existing user spa
On 9/25/18 11:51 PM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:37:41 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> For ifaddrmsg ifa_flags aligns with ifi_type which is set by kernel side
>> so this should be ok.
>
> Does the existing user space set ifi_type to anything? Does it zero out
> the field?
>
> Are we a
istian Brauner wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:19:06PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > > > > On top of net-next I am see a dmesg error:
> > > > >
> > > > > netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attr
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:37:41AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/25/18 8:47 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:49:10 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >> So if people really want to hide this issue as much as we can then we
> >> can play the guessing game. I could send a patch that
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:37:41 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> For ifaddrmsg ifa_flags aligns with ifi_type which is set by kernel side
> so this should be ok.
Does the existing user space set ifi_type to anything? Does it zero out
the field?
Are we able to find a flag value that is not going to be set
On 9/25/18 8:47 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:49:10 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> So if people really want to hide this issue as much as we can then we
>> can play the guessing game. I could send a patch that roughly does the
>> following:
>>
>> if (nlmsg_len(cb->nlh) < sizeof(
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:49:10 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> So if people really want to hide this issue as much as we can then we
> can play the guessing game. I could send a patch that roughly does the
> following:
>
> if (nlmsg_len(cb->nlh) < sizeof(struct ifinfomsg))
> guessed_header
e:
> > > > On top of net-next I am see a dmesg error:
> > > >
> > > > netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `ip'.
> > > >
> > > > I traced it to address lists and commit:
> > > >
> > > &g
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:49:10 +0200
Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:19:06PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > On top of net-next I am see a dmesg error:
> >
> > netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `ip'.
> >
> > I
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:19:06PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On top of net-next I am see a dmesg error:
>
> netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `ip'.
>
> I traced it to address lists and commit:
>
> commit 6ecf4c37eb3e89b0832c9616089a5cdca3
On top of net-next I am see a dmesg error:
netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `ip'.
I traced it to address lists and commit:
commit 6ecf4c37eb3e89b0832c9616089a5cdca3747da7
Author: Christian Brauner
Date: Tue Sep 4 21:53:50 2018 +0200
ipv6: e
11 matches
Mail list logo