On 10/2/18 5:27 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:18:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >> I didn't find this in the linked thread. > > Maybe it was suggested in another thread or in person on a conference, > I can't remember, it's too long ago, sorry. > >> What I find interesting and convincing is one of Dave's points: >> >> "I'm beginning to wonder if we can just change this unilaterally to >> not ignore unrecognized attributes. >> >> I am increasingly certain that things that would "break" we wouldn't >> want to succeed anyways." [1] > > It's unfortunate we can't do that. I'd like it.
You can when you introduce a new option or a new flag that is required to get new behavior like kernel side filtering. > >> But a socket option or this header flag both sound acceptable to me. Was >> there any more detail on how a socket option would look like, i.e. an >> api proposal or something? > > Look at how NETLINK_CAP_ACK and NETLINK_EXT_ACK is implemented. I chose a netlink flag for consistency with NLM_F_DUMP_INTR and NLM_F_DUMP_FILTERED. Both are netlink flags. This patch set fixes only what is broken -- dumps.
