From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: rtnetlink: support for fdb get
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:03:12 -0800
Message-ID: <20181214130312.1d835d2f@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <1544809401-42289-1-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
        <1544809401-42289-2-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
        <6daaa7f9-41db-30da-043c-0b34bc16bc72@cumulusnetworks.com>
        <CAJieiUgSSXACJAsa9U5pnxYW0bwr-=Hgu1oUmqMxS6HbvciSXA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181214113722.1c8638c6@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <e5f6a8ec-7510-0b30-9f41-5404c3178677@cumulusnetworks.com>
        <20181214115421.545038a2@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <024f717e-20d8-bd18-9ae9-586165f50ec8@cumulusnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com ([209.85.222.195]:36107 "EHLO
        mail-qk1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730952AbeLNVDS (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:03:18 -0500
Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id o125so4066867qkf.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:03:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <024f717e-20d8-bd18-9ae9-586165f50ec8@cumulusnetworks.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:58:13 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/14/18 12:54 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:42:21 -0700, David Ahern wrote:  
> >> On 12/14/18 12:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> >>> Oh, so we'd use the STRICT checking in doit for the first time?  I
> >>> better send that rename patch then..    
> >>
> >> IMHO, no. The flag is for older userspace that could be sending junk in
> >> the request. All new code should do strict checking without the flag set
> >> to ensure only proper requests are handled.  
> > 
> > I'm going back and forth on that in my head.  IDK if new user space
> > shouldn't be able to do a get request on an old kernel which doesn't
> > understand some of the attributes.  Grey area.. perhaps it needs to be
> > decided on case by case basis?  For my stats work I think returning too
> > many stats if what is affectively a filter is not understood may be a
> > good option.  Perhaps for fdb get it makes more sense to error out.
> > hmm..
> 
> I am referring to new code as in what Roopa is doing here -- adding a
> whole new feature (support for RTM_GETNEIGH for PF_BRIDGE). There is no
> support today, so no way it impacts existing userspace.
> 
> In cases where there is a handler for the operation, then, yes, the
> strict flag is needed for any new kernel side filtering to ensure the
> request is parsed properly.

Ack.  So for those new handlers we would never allow the behaviour of
ignoring unknown attributes?  Perhaps I'm over-thinking this, but maybe
we should then just require the STRICT flag on the socket, and if not
set return -EINVAL?  Slightly more consistent behaviour, and it gives
us a clean way out if someone has a strong use case for ignoring the
attributes.  

Just spit balling here, I'm happy either way.