[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250901115041.03d661fa@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 11:50:41 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
<ast@...erby.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Donald Hunter
<donald.hunter@...il.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jacob Keller
<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, "Matthieu
Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/4] netlink: specs: fou: change local-v6/peer-v6
check
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 14:50:20 +0000 Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> While fixing the binary min-len implementaion, I noticed that
> the only user, should AFAICT be using exact-len instead.
>
> In net/ipv4/fou_core.c FOU_ATTR_LOCAL_V6 and FOU_ATTR_PEER_V6
> are only used for singular IPv6 addresses, a exact-len policy,
> therefore seams like a better fit.
>
> AFAICT this was caused by lacking support for the exact-len check
> at the time of the blamed commit, which was later remedied by
> c63ad379526 ("tools: ynl-gen: add support for exact-len validation").
No, take a look at 1d562c32e43. The intention was to keep the code
before and after the same. I agree that the check is not ideal but
it's not really a bug to ignore some input. So if you want to clean
this up -- net-next and no Fixes tag..
> This patch therefore changes the local-v6/peer-v6 attributes to
> use an exact-len check, instead of a min-len check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists