Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL is disabled

[Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 09:20:39AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 31/08/2022 09:13, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:12:37 +0300 Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> When CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL is disabled,
> >> NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL is undefined and results in a compilation
> >> error:
> >> net/ieee802154/nl802154.c:2503:19: error: 'NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'NL802154_CMD_SET_CCA_ED_LEVEL'?
> >>  2503 |  .resv_start_op = NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL + 1,
> >>       |                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>       |                   NL802154_CMD_SET_CCA_ED_LEVEL
> >>
> >> Use __NL802154_CMD_AFTER_LAST instead of
> >> 'NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL + 1' to indicate the last command.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 9c5d03d36251 ("genetlink: start to validate reserved header bytes")
> >> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>
> >> ---
> >>  net/ieee802154/nl802154.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c b/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c
> >> index 38c4f3cb010e..dbfd24c70bd0 100644
> >> --- a/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c
> >> +++ b/net/ieee802154/nl802154.c
> >> @@ -2500,7 +2500,7 @@ static struct genl_family nl802154_fam __ro_after_init = {
> >>  	.module = THIS_MODULE,
> >>  	.ops = nl802154_ops,
> >>  	.n_ops = ARRAY_SIZE(nl802154_ops),
> >> -	.resv_start_op = NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL + 1,
> >> +	.resv_start_op = __NL802154_CMD_AFTER_LAST,
> >>  	.mcgrps = nl802154_mcgrps,
> >>  	.n_mcgrps = ARRAY_SIZE(nl802154_mcgrps),
> >>  };
> > Thanks for the fix! I think we should switch to 
> > NL802154_CMD_SET_WPAN_PHY_NETNS + 1, tho.
> >
> > The point is to set the value to the cmd number after _currently_ 
> > last defined command. The meta-value like LAST will move next time
> > someone adds a command, meaning the validation for new commands will
> > never actually come.
> 
> I see, missed that part.
> 
> So, shouldn't it be:
> #ifdef CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL
>         .resv_start_op = NL802154_CMD_DEL_SEC_LEVEL + 1,
> #else
>         .resv_start_op = NL802154_CMD_SET_WPAN_PHY_NETNS + 1,
> #endif

+1, I wanted to propose the same snippet.

Thanks

> 
> ?