[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190321.145853.422691977128044341.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mkubecek@...e.cz
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
linville@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 01/22] rtnetlink: provide permanent
hardware address in RTM_NEWLINK
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:40:21 +0100 (CET)
> Permanent hardware address of a network device was traditionally provided
> via ethtool ioctl interface but as Jiri Pirko pointed out in a review of
> ethtool netlink interface, rtnetlink is much more suitable for it so let's
> add it to the RTM_NEWLINK message.
>
> As permanent address is not modifiable, reject userspace requests
> containing IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS attribute.
>
> Note: we already provide permanent hardware address for bond slaves;
> unfortunately we cannot drop that attribute for backward compatibility
> reasons.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Jakub asked if we should check the perm_addr and if it is set.
I would say no, in order to be consistent with what ethtool does which
is that it does not check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists