From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A30BC146A74 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718290763; cv=none; b=NbmT2rGKXgi7wF4c74RIGwtVJTAHue195g6cZ3TBH8tfN85Wkkq0tnUtUIAZV/mGmeOgayphL5SNcCzqlxszc8oPI4xqUKzaoEgJ0uMP4NLPNfjUCgtHr+iNRzlDF/EsiApkBysqZie4BsIDDK5+C50n+wR7XiqcOsX+yA55dv8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718290763; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qs2Dz7qjSbW4vccPeJYtnqhSYlxFt3bToMTXiSpftTo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FyjHNWXHVucIh6g6UsK111glMVQ0FRbEFbKyr8+QlfVZ+ZNwMqECUS+NTPM7HdPXuiGpEtUdVJNruHMQYXt5Cq+669BULNzcLHLA8K6J6F5Oh0Sj3fTwmNL8oFTU9411ivvnhN+VrFDtmvi1Ot0ry2Mcntbv68KyjqRn07c0Nas= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Yx0uP1gD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Yx0uP1gD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3950DC32786; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:59:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1718290763; bh=qs2Dz7qjSbW4vccPeJYtnqhSYlxFt3bToMTXiSpftTo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Yx0uP1gDwb6Y4Yqm1HkVgJV+XZTCZVWS7uCG84X9HKSSFMaQS0J4AMPp7ad4IsapJ qoO2ZkEOOlPsaVmIC1cKnaUgFF7fYBU0BarcMUdruYJb5CjNP6XXrdNaTcRcTyEWaL fwfkZWdko+dap8fRG5X0yKRG1OVH0qBmgRZ8jm6KtKSEf/qLD5HTJnKJxxMjj3p8p/ f62qc8Ytsl+pjDZcsx2aff8xXXFgvz9CkAMJvYh6S5F4S+VlwT1Q4p87ZA3D0bLRvq AKaiyNoQjeVox1FqtNFnZtVsBBvHFs1ljEmVEckDsfSZplYZioAnIaWArr+X/Mnz7p LYwcb7Uvh/Nlg== Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:59:22 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Maciej =?UTF-8?B?xbtlbmN6eWtvd3NraQ==?= Cc: Linux NetDev , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Some sort of netlink RTM_GET(ROUTE|RULE|NEIGH) regression(?) in 6.10-rc3 vs 6.9 Message-ID: <20240613075922.1052ce99@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240613062927.54b15104@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:21:15 +0200 Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski wrote: > Ok, I sent out 2 patches adding the flag in 3 more spots that are > enough to get both tests working. Thanks! > The first in RTM_GETNEIGH seems obvious enough. >=20 > $ git grep rtnl_register.*RTM_GETNEIGH, > net/core/neighbour.c:3894: rtnl_register(PF_UNSPEC, RTM_GETNEIGH, > neigh_get, neigh_dump_info, > net/core/rtnetlink.c:6752: rtnl_register(PF_BRIDGE, RTM_GETNEIGH, > rtnl_fdb_get, rtnl_fdb_dump, 0); > net/mctp/neigh.c:331: rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, PF_MCTP, RTM_GE= TNEIGH, >=20 > but there is also PF_BRIDGE and PF_MCTP... (though obviously the test > doesn't care) > (and also RTM_GETNEIGHTBL...) These weren't converted to the new way, so they will be okay. > The RTM_GETRULE portion of the second one seems fine too: >=20 > $ git grep rtnl_register.*RTM_GETRULE > net/core/fib_rules.c:1296: rtnl_register(PF_UNSPEC, RTM_GETRULE, > NULL, fib_nl_dumprule, >=20 > but I'm less certain about the GET_ROUTE portion there-of... as > there's a lot of hits: >=20 > $ git grep rtnl_register.*RTM_GETROUTE > net/can/gw.c:1293: ret =3D rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, > PF_CAN, RTM_GETROUTE, > net/core/rtnetlink.c:6743: rtnl_register(PF_UNSPEC, RTM_GETROUTE, > NULL, rtnl_dump_all, 0); > net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c:1662: rtnl_register(PF_INET, RTM_GETROUTE, > NULL, inet_dump_fib, > net/ipv4/ipmr.c:3162: rtnl_register(RTNL_FAMILY_IPMR, RTM_GETROUTE, > net/ipv4/route.c:3696: rtnl_register(PF_INET, RTM_GETROUTE, > inet_rtm_getroute, NULL, > net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:2516: ret =3D > rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, PF_INET6, RTM_GETROUTE, NULL, > net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:1394: err =3D rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, > RTNL_FAMILY_IP6MR, RTM_GETROUTE, > net/ipv6/route.c:6737: ret =3D rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, > PF_INET6, RTM_GETROUTE, > net/mctp/route.c:1481: rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, PF_MCTP, RTM_GE= TROUTE, > net/mpls/af_mpls.c:2755: rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, > PF_MPLS, RTM_GETROUTE, > net/phonet/pn_netlink.c:304: rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, > PF_PHONET, RTM_GETROUTE, >=20 > It seems like maybe v4 and both mr's should be changed too? Didn't check MR, the v4 route dump has the flag already, AFAICS.