From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359E3C28CC5 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 03:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD132075C for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 03:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cumulusnetworks.com header.i=@cumulusnetworks.com header.b="VKlvVRkU" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726554AbfFED6A (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 23:58:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:43585 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726537AbfFED6A (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 23:58:00 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id cl9so4080416plb.10 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:58:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cumulusnetworks.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OPvE1+UWt+12yPZpEgKvZsFtEEo1Y+wvIlSqX9qA3+A=; b=VKlvVRkUo38eYer1ZLeSs9TjrFEFKXuQ7PaBxRlN+MEzM0X6Wwbl36KtMpdRNiLt2b 0IITLYXFktdaYH1NrqFfSdypwkYsn1rH9hlPGYeSLNrnbsAn3ByR+c/uq1GL+JzSJ2Kc IFDKakh99rgkW4PwOFw7DW0G3Ov+OH258yX4Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OPvE1+UWt+12yPZpEgKvZsFtEEo1Y+wvIlSqX9qA3+A=; b=Yp9WiBbAP8jOWzdq8s7MoNEWxyp1Pltp94Rj809XkH03STBVPDLDjViqaEMH4Fm8UX aLknSjV4NYCLvnHJRwxK2yVQ6YuEvq4J9mVEChR2JJU4dOZwdSi+cVPBvKopshOYH3kv dtdg6SwaU0gOa7mn47GsaTeo1IuWr7m2ESDzkFOPlO8IHms6hdHTZ7qU5DlY3szl88YR 04lTff+/nTCmzohk+mOcogyXD9MbrCK4XP3eKvzJURW7P4xUqGgpNoMFPdh1+HTpB8kN ZdTrPoemdyrJK9FR/pr1G+KwQmxj/pyzm8QfQEmOXgD8JGaUZO7QaLD6gHZdvciIfgom xi9A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWY/fVm8Do9QK995mzxK+J7Zy0HmYW0n9vnlGRAkkA2oPDwtNxk Ue7cBH+vCXgmQkUjsGG4iy04aw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhQa4/zwKK1lqnxyUehBD9rQ8LxYl+cGTo8uFcFnhjYb9gLv/ZeF2nlMovGiKRT6kpH77WVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b691:: with SMTP id c17mr18282366pls.107.1559707079847; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.27.227.186] ([216.129.126.118]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm17380883pjp.17.2019.06.04.20.57.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH net] fib_rules: return 0 directly if an exactly same rule exists when NLM_F_EXCL not supplied To: Hangbin Liu , David Ahern Cc: David Miller , Yaro Slav , Thomas Haller , Lorenzo Colitti , astrachan@google.com, Greg KH , Linux NetDev , mateusz.bajorski@nokia.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=c5=bbenczykowski?= References: <20190507091118.24324-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <20190508.093541.1274244477886053907.davem@davemloft.net> <20190605014344.GY18865@dhcp-12-139.nay.redhat.com> From: David Ahern Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 21:57:56 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190605014344.GY18865@dhcp-12-139.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 6/4/19 7:43 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote: > Hi David Ahern, > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 06:43:42PM -0700, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: >> FYI, this userspace visible change in behaviour breaks Android. >> >> We rely on being able to add a rule and either have a dup be created >> (in which case we'll remove it later) or have it fail with EEXIST (in >> which case we won't remove it later). >> >> Returning 0 makes atomically changing a rule difficult. >> >> Please revert. > What do you think? Should I rever this commit? I think it is crazy to add multiple identical rules given the linear effect on performance. But, since it breaks Android, it has to be reverted.