On 5/10/23 16:10, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 4/25/23 14:41, Roi Dayan wrote: >>> From: Gavin Li <[email protected]> >>> >>> Linux kernel netlink module added NLA_F_NESTED flag checking for nested >>> netlink messages in 5.2. A nested message without the flag set will be >>> treated as malformated one. The check is optional and is controlled by >>> message policy. To avoid this, add NLA_F_NESTED explicitly for all >>> nested netlink messages. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Li <[email protected]> >>> Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> lib/netlink.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/netlink.c b/lib/netlink.c >>> index 6215282d6fbe..f128b63074f9 100644 >>> --- a/lib/netlink.c >>> +++ b/lib/netlink.c >>> @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ size_t >>> nl_msg_start_nested(struct ofpbuf *msg, uint16_t type) >>> { >>> size_t offset = msg->size; >>> - nl_msg_put_unspec_uninit(msg, type, 0); >>> + nl_msg_put_unspec_uninit(msg, type | NLA_F_NESTED, 0); >>> return offset; >>> } >>> >> >> >> Just posting a link to the ongoing v1 conversation on this patch here >> for visibility: >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ > > It seems to me that the agreement in the thread at the link above was to > create a function, nl_msg_start_nested_with_flag(), that would only set the > flag when appropriate. Which I think was the TC use-case. > > Did the conversation move on from there? > Or was it an oversight not to do that in v2? > Or am I completely off track?
v2 was posted before the conversation on v1 converged. I think we have an agreement, but it might make sense to review (at least visually) some other aspects of the patch set before posting v3. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
