From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 3/5] ipv4: enable IFA_IF_NETNSID for
 RTM_GETADDR
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:27:51 -0600
Message-ID: <8f0aa154-1ba9-5659-cbe3-19da4196fae0@gmail.com>
References: <20180903043717.20136-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <20180903043717.20136-4-christian@brauner.io>
 <a4282d46-4c17-b395-dec0-7c8ac10cbf97@gmail.com>
 <20180904085006.58c665c0@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        pombredanne@nexb.com, kstewart@linuxfoundation.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, fw@strlen.de, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
        lucien.xin@gmail.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com
To: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180904085006.58c665c0@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 9/4/18 12:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> 
> This is a general problem with netlink: unknown attributes are ignored.
> We need a way to detect that certain attribute was understood by the
> kernel or was not. And it needs to work retroactively, i.e. the
> application has to be able to determine the currently running kernel
> does not support the feature (because it's too old).

sure, and that has been discussed before.

> 
> That's why we return back the attribute in responses to a request with
> IFLA_IF_NETNSID present and why we should do the same for
> IFA_IF_NETNSID.
> 
>> See 21fdd092acc7e. I would like to see other filters added for addresses
>> in the same release this gets used. The only one that comes to mind for
>> addresses is to only return addresses for devices with master device
>> index N (same intent as 21fdd092acc7e for neighbors).
> 
> I also question the statement that IFA_F_NETNSID is a filter: my
> understanding of "filter" is something that limits the output to a
> certain subset. I.e., unfiltered results always contain everything that
> is in a filtered result. While with IFA_F_NETNSID, we get a completely
> different set of data. Does that really constitute a filter? Note that
> we can still filter in the target netns.
> 

I'll buy that argument over the 'too coarse' one. Looking at the link
version of this flag, the NLM_F_DUMP_FILTERED flag is not used there so
for consistency the address one should follow suit.