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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEABC433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239964AbhLQRzt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:55:49 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:20709 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231484AbhLQRzt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:55:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1639763748; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HytMPrUuu50Os66ijVCnUpKvjuAjloMtur9VWK7cTMA=; b=BlDWD6W9cMbyp66XYwpDP7CWVuEs9ZpuxG7fSkdpm6TBfsADPss5MIN/g+MiYiRtneDp0S KoiF2YlRAYSP1O7aXkH6euIAWgqvP4oesncv+ogDm30OTdl1jb8uiPoQYCr+KhFqg1DeMO V0uStaU3uv9kadigwxMwcTKP7A1+yVo= Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-282--hnXmoH3MqiguIMa4Z0emQ-1; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:55:47 -0500 X-MC-Unique: -hnXmoH3MqiguIMa4Z0emQ-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id a7-20020a056214062700b00410c76282c3so3403445qvx.4 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:55:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=HytMPrUuu50Os66ijVCnUpKvjuAjloMtur9VWK7cTMA=; b=qlfd8EtXaC7iS6mrJV92/16VCqFSptGJRv1Nh9sGmXd8KOqhvh0HpBaY1xll1852He hVrcNXWqCzU0uttTVVPVjlCX6kZs8BYUlkIred+7aJ16Ua8ArRelGtFTYyq5ZVYl2e6j GU+WCALvu6YNjdbJxw6GDdbv1KJiurzFUXeTvE0REYFBSdWWOmHNDPkzyInuCi+ftQZ8 mO+H3i0B0vFvvhvfab45Ga9EZo1cONOTStYwh3e2HquTUqIzL2eB9UWg3KFnUbvmJg0J vtLSw1N5DMHoZzGJQE7TJkDxxdGEYR4YHv5C7N61VER8u/HsvhjKlA0opS51a79/sA5/ cstg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MZMmL51ykyMxCzN3tBFMDCcsIYgrZKxaylCsL/599TF6Qv5S6 tGm3OK0AME9kJptaAXcpZ3m2Xs8uafhoLrjPplm0MbM9ng44cEhn+KOMDOs9lxU2IDhtVsto6/m 4H9x+vFODc6npfKSu X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:450a:: with SMTP id t10mr305245qkp.637.1639763746775; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:55:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrPtWdnFcBl5rI7/hZKLp3ChJMrHTfdT3/PHIDzs5fEGch9ch1siRlpsPOj7AHGMU8hVyTHw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:450a:: with SMTP id t10mr305226qkp.637.1639763746350; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk ([45.145.92.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 16sm7851665qty.2.2021.12.17.09.55.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E73CA1802E8; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 18:55:43 +0100 (CET) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Guillaume Nault Cc: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , David Ahern , Russell Strong Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] inet: Separate DSCP from ECN bits using new dscp_t type In-Reply-To: <20211215164826.GA3426@pc-1.home> References: <87k0g8yr9w.fsf@toke.dk> <20211215164826.GA3426@pc-1.home> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 18:55:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87czlvazfk.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> > Note that there's no equivalent of patch 3 for IPv6 (ip route), since >> > the tos/dsfield option is silently ignored for IPv6 routes. >> >> Shouldn't we just start rejecting them, like for v4? > > I had some thoughs about that, but didn't talk about them in the cover > letter since I felt there was already enough edge cases to discuss, and > this one wasn't directly related to this series (the problem is there > regardless of this RFC). > > So, on the one hand, we have this old policy of ignoring unknown > netlink attributes, so it looks consistent to also ignore unused > structure fields. > > On the other hand, ignoring rtm_tos leads to a different behaviour than > what was requested. So it certainly makes sense to at least warn the > user. But a hard fail may break existing programs that don't clear > rtm_tos by mistake. > > I'm not too sure which approach is better. So I guess you could argue that those applications were broken in the first place, and so an explicit reject would only expose this? Do you know of any applications that actually *function* while doing what you describe? One thought could be to add the rejection but be prepared to back it out if it does turn out (during the -rc phase) that it breaks something? -Toke