[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538DBDB3.7030505@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:21:07 +0200
From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, michael.riesch@...cron.at,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rtnetlink: fix userspace API breakage for iproute2
< v3.9.0
On 05/31/2014 02:42 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:15:19 +0200
>
>> When running RHEL6 userspace on a current upstream kernel, "ip link"
>> fails to show VF information.
>>
>> The reason is a kernel<->userspace API change introduced by commit
>> 88c5b5ce5cb57 ("rtnetlink: Call nlmsg_parse() with correct header length"),
>> after which the kernel does not see iproute2's IFLA_EXT_MASK attribute
>> in the netlink request.
>>
>> iproute2 adjusted for the API change in its commit 63338dca4513
>> ("libnetlink: Use ifinfomsg instead of rtgenmsg in rtnl_wilddump_req_filter").
>>
>> The problem has been noticed before:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=136692296022182&w=2
>> (Subject: Re: getting VF link info seems to be broken in 3.9-rc8)
>>
>> We can do better than tell those with old userspace to upgrade. We can
>> recognize the old iproute2 in the kernel by checking the netlink message
>> length. Even when including the IFLA_EXT_MASK attribute, its netlink
>> message is shorter than struct ifinfomsg.
>>
>> With this patch "ip link" shows VF information in both old and new
>> iproute2 versions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
>
> The userspace tool should be fixed on the system, rather than having the
> kernel cater to a user tool bug.
>
> I'm not applying this, sorry.
David,
the old version of the userspace tool did what it had to do in order to
work with a contemporary kernel. You can call that a bug, but the fact
is that it used to work that way.
I do not see a difference between "catering to a user tool bug" and
"not breaking applications, whether we like them or not" (paraphrasing
Linus's message on this very mailing list just 10 days ago).
I could understand your objection if my proposed patch could break
something else, but you are not saying that, are you?
Regards,
Michal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists