Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/5] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware address in RTM_NEWLINK

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 13:27 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/10/19 1:23 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 21:22 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > No, wait. I misread, you said "when ALT_IFNAME was added" but somehow I
> > managed to read "when it was added"...
> > 
> > So yeah, it should have one. Dunno about net, your call. I'd probably
> > not bother for an NLA_REJECT attribute, there's little use including it
> > anyway.
> > 
> 
> It's new in net, so it has to be there not net-next.

Oh, ok. Well, I was actually thinking to just add it on the next
attribute or so, but I guess now that we're discussing it there's a
higher chance of it actually happening :)

johannes