From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: inbound connection problems when "netlink: test for all flags of the NLM_F_DUMP composite" commit applied Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:59:37 -0500 Message-ID: <1295456377.2184.2.camel@mojatatu> References: <4D336050.9030602@netfilter.org> <20110118093811.GA7520@ff.dom.local> <20110118.020702.115924992.davem@davemloft.net> <20110118102437.GB7520@ff.dom.local> <4D35F8A3.1010600@netfilter.org> <20110118205507.GB4288@del.dom.local> <1295447286.2008.850.camel@mojatatu> <20110119165413.GB1845@del.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , David Miller , arthur.marsh@internode.on.net, jengelh@medozas.de, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:43355 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754499Ab1ASQ7l (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:59:41 -0500 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16so437531vws.19 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:59:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110119165413.GB1845@del.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:54 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:28:06AM -0500, jamal wrote: > > So here is what i think the criteria should be: > > > > If Avahi is popular and widely deployed (I dont use it anywhere), it > > makes no sense to revert. > > A middle ground is: instead of rejecting the nonsense passed, maybe a > > sane thing to do is a kernel warning for a period of time (sort of like > > feature removal warnings). > > I still don't understand why you call this the nonsense. gah! I already had plenty of caffeine when i typed that. I meant to say "If Avahi is popular and widely deployed, it makes sense to revert" > There are > two dump flags NLM_F_ROOT and NLM_F_MATCH plus for convenience > NLM_F_DUMP as 2 in 1. Avahi uses these specific flags. Why would > anybody have added these specific flags if they can never be used > separately? > > Aside from this question, if we still think it's the nonsense, a > warning would be nicer. That is what i was suggesting as well.. cheers, jamal