Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ipv6: ioam: Add support for the ip6ip6 encapsulation

[Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>]

>>>>  static const struct nla_policy ioam6_iptunnel_policy[IOAM6_IPTUNNEL_MAX + 1] = {
>>>> -	[IOAM6_IPTUNNEL_TRACE]	= NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(sizeof(struct ioam6_trace_hdr)),
>>>> +	[IOAM6_IPTUNNEL_TRACE]	= NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(sizeof(struct
>>>> ioam6_iptunnel_trace)),
>>>
>>> you can't do that. Once a kernel is released with a given UAPI, it can
>>> not be changed. You could go the other way and handle
>>>
>>> struct ioam6_iptunnel_trace {
>>> +	struct ioam6_trace_hdr trace;
>>> +	__u8 mode;
>>> +	struct in6_addr tundst;	/* unused for inline mode */
>>> +};
>> 
>> Makes sense. But I'm not sure what you mean by "go the other way". Should I
>> handle ioam6_iptunnel_trace as well, in addition to ioam6_trace_hdr, so that
>> the uapi is backward compatible?
> 
> by "the other way" I meant let ioam6_trace_hdr be the top element in the
> new ioam6_iptunnel_trace struct. If the IOAM6_IPTUNNEL_TRACE size ==
> ioam6_trace_hdr then you know it is the legacy argument vs sizeof
> ioam6_iptunnel_trace which is the new.

OK, I see. The problem is ioam6_trace_hdr must be the last entry because of its last field, which is "__u8 data[0]". But, anyway, I could still apply the same kind of logic with the size.

>>> Also, no gaps in uapi. Make sure all holes are stated; an anonymous
>>> entry is best.
>> 
>> Would something like this do the trick?
>> 
>> struct ioam6_iptunnel_trace {
>> 	struct ioam6_trace_hdr trace;
>> 	__u8 mode;
>> 	union { /* anonymous field only used by both the encap and auto modes */
>> 		struct in6_addr tundst;
>> 	};
>> };
> 
> By anonymous filling of the holes I meant something like:
> 
> struct ioam6_iptunnel_trace {
>	struct ioam6_trace_hdr trace;
>	__u8 mode;
>	__u8 :8;
>	__u16 :16;
> 
>	struct in6_addr tundst;
> };
> 
> Use pahole to check that struct for proper alignment of the entries as
> desired (4-byte or 8-byte aligned).

By reading your example, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Actually, do you refer to the fact that the ioam6_trace_hdr field must be 8n-aligned? If so, I don't see any static way to do that (i.e., by adding anonymous fields as you did) since it depends on the size of the data field I mentioned above.  The size can either be 8n-aligned already, or 4n-aligned in which case we add a PadN (1 2 0 0) at the end of the data field.