Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 04/12] net: netlink: add NLM_F_BULK delete request modifier

[Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>]

Le 13/04/2022 à 12:51, Nikolay Aleksandrov a écrit :
> Add a new delete request modifier called NLM_F_BULK which, when
> supported, would cause the request to delete multiple objects. The flag
> is a convenient way to signal that a multiple delete operation is
> requested which can be gradually added to different delete requests. In
> order to make sure older kernels will error out if the operation is not
> supported instead of doing something unintended we have to break a
> required condition when implementing support for this flag, f.e. for
> neighbors we will omit the mandatory mac address attribute.
> Initially it will be used to add flush with filtering support for bridge
> fdbs, but it also opens the door to add similar support to others.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/netlink.h | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
> index 4c0cde075c27..855dffb4c1c3 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ struct nlmsghdr {
>  
>  /* Modifiers to DELETE request */
>  #define NLM_F_NONREC	0x100	/* Do not delete recursively	*/
> +#define NLM_F_BULK	0x200	/* Delete multiple objects	*/
Sorry to reply to an old patch, but FWIW, this patch broke the uAPI.
One of our applications was using NLM_F_EXCL with RTM_DELTFILTER. This is
conceptually wrong but it was working. After this patch, the kernel returns an
error (EOPNOTSUPP).

Here is the patch series:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?h=92716869375b

We probably can't do anything now, but to avoid this in the future, I see only
two options:
 - enforce flags validation depending on the operation (but this may break some
   existing apps)
 - stop adding new flags that overlap between NEW and DEL operations (by adding
   a comment or defining dummy flags).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Nicolas