On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Matthieu Baerts
<matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On 03/06/2020 20:14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:12:01AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> Hi Ferenc,
> >>
> >> On 03/06/2020 10:56, Ferenc Fejes wrote:
> >>> Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ezt írta (időpont:
> >>> 2020. jún. 3., Sze, 10:11):
> >>>>
> >>>> A recent commit added new variables only used if CONFIG_NETDEVICES is
> >>>> set.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for noticing and fixed this!
> >>>
> >>>> A simple fix is to only declare these variables if the same
> >>>> condition is valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other solutions could be to move the code related to SO_BINDTODEVICE
> >>>> option from _bpf_setsockopt() function to a dedicated one or only
> >>>> declare these variables in the related "case" section.
> >>>
> >>> Yes thats indeed a cleaner way to approach this. I will prepare a fix for that.
> >>
> >> I should have maybe added that I didn't take this approach because in the
> >> rest of the code, I don't see that variables are declared only in a "case"
> >> section (no "{" ... "}" after "case") and code is generally not moved into a
> >> dedicated function in these big switch/cases. But maybe it makes sense here
> >> because of the #ifdef!
> >> At the end, I took the simple approach because it is for -net.
> >>
> >> In other words, I don't know what maintainers would prefer here but I am
> >> happy to see any another solutions implemented to remove these compiler
> >> warnings :)
> >
> > since CONFIG_NETDEVICES doesn't change anything in .h
> > I think the best is to remove #ifdef CONFIG_NETDEVICES from net/core/filter.c
> > and rely on sock_bindtoindex() returning ENOPROTOOPT
> > in the extreme case of oddly configured kernels.
>
> Good idea, thank you!
> I can send a patch implementing that.
Please do.
Your 'Notes:' section was absolutely correct in terms of different
trees relationship :)
Thank you.
