[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:23:29 +0300
From: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] rtnetlink: add RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:13 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/11/21 9:02 AM, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > index 5888492a5257..c15e591e5d25 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > @@ -417,6 +417,9 @@ struct rtnexthop {
> > #define RTNH_COMPARE_MASK (RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN | \
> > RTNH_F_OFFLOAD | RTNH_F_TRAP)
> >
> > +/* these flags can't be set by the userspace */
> > +#define RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK (RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN)
> > +
> > /* Macros to handle hexthops */
>
> Userspace can not set any of the flags in RTNH_COMPARE_MASK.
Hi David,
thanks! So, I have to prepare a patch which fixes current checks for rtnh_flags
against RTNH_COMPARE_MASK. So, there is no need to introduce a separate
RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK.
Am I right?
Regards,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists