[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <acd3947857e5be5340239cd49c8e2a51c283b884.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:22:07 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/5] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware
address in RTM_NEWLINK
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 09:51 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:07:53 +0100 (CET), Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > @@ -1822,6 +1826,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy ifla_policy[IFLA_MAX+1] = {
> > [IFLA_PROP_LIST] = { .type = NLA_NESTED },
> > [IFLA_ALT_IFNAME] = { .type = NLA_STRING,
> > .len = ALTIFNAMSIZ - 1 },
> > + [IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS] = { .type = NLA_REJECT },
> > };
> >
> > static const struct nla_policy ifla_info_policy[IFLA_INFO_MAX+1] = {
>
> Jiri, I just noticed ifla_policy didn't get strict_start_type set when
> ALT_IFNAME was added, should we add it in net? 🤔
Does it need one? It shouldn't be used with
nla_parse_nested_deprecated(), and if it's used with nla_parse_nested()
then it doesn't matter?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists