[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d1380b4-217c-387b-7e44-efaa8d091108@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 08:57:24 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 03/25] netlink: introduce
NLM_F_DUMP_PROPER_HDR flag
On 10/2/18 5:27 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:18:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> I didn't find this in the linked thread.
>
> Maybe it was suggested in another thread or in person on a conference,
> I can't remember, it's too long ago, sorry.
>
>> What I find interesting and convincing is one of Dave's points:
>>
>> "I'm beginning to wonder if we can just change this unilaterally to
>> not ignore unrecognized attributes.
>>
>> I am increasingly certain that things that would "break" we wouldn't
>> want to succeed anyways." [1]
>
> It's unfortunate we can't do that. I'd like it.
You can when you introduce a new option or a new flag that is required
to get new behavior like kernel side filtering.
>
>> But a socket option or this header flag both sound acceptable to me. Was
>> there any more detail on how a socket option would look like, i.e. an
>> api proposal or something?
>
> Look at how NETLINK_CAP_ACK and NETLINK_EXT_ACK is implemented.
I chose a netlink flag for consistency with NLM_F_DUMP_INTR and
NLM_F_DUMP_FILTERED. Both are netlink flags. This patch set fixes only
what is broken -- dumps.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists