From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2BAC282DE for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EB9214C6 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="nsY/9Swm" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728655AbfAUHcu (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:32:50 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:57737 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728216AbfAUHcu (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:32:50 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C10727AA8; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:32:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=ddzYT8 IkTn9I0d/VOoWKzzq316k6tUfwIGfooLsdhXY=; b=nsY/9SwmSxUfNgoIpU+yXX Qiy++8H/v3Zihim66m8XCXflpM5E59fkjOZ702HOKuE/NExf5G9CXFWAe2RfbAeM EDVcfsM353He4+ahU53SdAYZThKOa48FD57D+yxnk8ub93vg1ps18NLRm0gt5tln TVVmtfIbxFZGrGcZPOBlIMCt74PjqBug63f9EzZ33m1usDER5KNOYT32ht7n/How HxYt1vd+1LEQ6vqpZ2IjhM05KJL/HCPHYcU0HIH4ZneDPbQSRg+O7n60QBDUmrJq 1WCpCXbAQyv98YNVYOSTaYDVmE1b5Nag9h6WpB7uDBL9s+JarTha3AcHjJZS3YdQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrheehgdduuddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfh ggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefkughoucfutghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehi ughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucfkphepudelfedrgeejrdduieehrddvhe dunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhg necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (unknown [193.47.165.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1D999E4650; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:32:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:32:46 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel To: David Ahern Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip route: get: only set RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE flag for IPv4 Message-ID: <20190121073246.GA4717@splinter> References: <20190112205406.25698-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <20190114080547.452b9915@hermes.lan> <24a5672e-a574-dfdc-3482-e86056e22939@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24a5672e-a574-dfdc-3482-e86056e22939@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:29:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/14/19 9:05 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:54:06 -0800 > > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > >> Kernel ignores the RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE flag for all families > >> but IPv4. Don't set it, otherwise it may fall foul of > >> strict checking policies. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski > > > > Doing the right thing is a good idea, but really I can't see > > the point of doing this. The kernel will always have to accept > > requests from older versions of iproute2 (it can never be stricter) > > because of ABI compatibility. So unless you can make a stronger > > case for this; no not applying it. > > > > iproute2 is often used as a reference model for features. Making > iproute2 correct is the right thing to do regardless of whether what the > kernel accepts. > > Current master branch is the first iproute2 to use the strict checking, > and its first release with strict checking should have as many of these > little one offs as possible fixed. With current iproute2-next and net-next I get: $ ip -6 route get 2001:db8:1::2 Error: ipv6: Invalid flags for get route request. Are we going to patch the kernel to accept a flag it is not using or are we going to patch iproute2 to not send it?