Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dich...@6wind.com> wrote: > I understand your point, but this is a regression. Ignoring a field/attribute > of > a netlink message is part of the uAPI. This field exists for more than a > decade > (probably two), so you cannot just use it because nobody was using it. Just > see > all discussions about strict validation of netlink messages. > Moreover, the conntrack tool exists also for ages and is an official tool.
FWIW I agree with Nicolas, we should restore old behaviour and flush everything when AF_INET is given. We can add new netlink attr to restrict this.
