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

[David Ahern]

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? ð
>>
>> 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.