[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200917014151.GK3463198@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:41:51 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ethtool: add and use message type for tunnel info
reply
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:04:10AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> Tunnel offload info code uses ETHTOOL_MSG_TUNNEL_INFO_GET message type (cmd
> field in genetlink header) for replies to tunnel info netlink request, i.e.
> the same value as the request have. This is a problem because we are using
> two separate enums for userspace to kernel and kernel to userspace message
> types so that this ETHTOOL_MSG_TUNNEL_INFO_GET (28) collides with
> ETHTOOL_MSG_CABLE_TEST_TDR_NTF which is what message type 28 means for
> kernel to userspace messages.
>
> rskb = ethnl_reply_init(reply_len, req_info.dev,
> - ETHTOOL_MSG_TUNNEL_INFO_GET,
> + ETHTOOL_MSG_TUNNEL_INFO_GET_REPLY,
> ETHTOOL_A_TUNNEL_INFO_HEADER,
> info, &reply_payload);
Michal
Maybe it would make sense to change the two enums from anonymous to
tagged. We can then make ethnl_reply_init() do type checking and
hopefully catch such problems earlier?
I just wonder if we then run into ABI problems?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists