From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 ipsec-next] xfrm: Do not parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on 64bits host Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:13:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20150306061347.GA3311@secunet.com> References: <1422349230-17394-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: , , , To: Fan Du Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:49498 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752759AbbCFGNy (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 01:13:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1422349230-17394-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 05:00:29PM +0800, Fan Du wrote: > structure like xfrm_usersa_info or xfrm_userpolicy_info > has different sizeof when compiled as 32bits and 64bits > due to not appending pack attribute in their definition. > This will result in broken SA and SP information when user > trying to configure them through netlink interface. > > Inform user land about this situation instead of keeping > silent, the upper test scripts would behave accordingly. > > Quotes from: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142226348715503&w=2 > > > > Before a clean solution show up, I think it's better to warn user in some way > > like http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/323842/ did. Otherwise, many people > > who stuck there will always spend time and try to fix this issue in whatever way. > > Yes, this is the first thing we should do. I'm willing to accept a patch > > Signed-off-by: Fan Du Now applied to ipsec-next, thanks a lot Fan!