On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 08:59:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:31:39 +0100 Remi Pommarel wrote:
> > In compat mode SIOC{G,S}IFBR ioctls were only supporting
> > BRCTL_GET_VERSION returning an artificially version to spur userland
> > tool to use SIOCDEVPRIVATE instead. But some userland tools ignore that
> > and use SIOC{G,S}IFBR unconditionally as seen with busybox's brctl.
> >
> > Example of non working 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
> > $ brctl show
> > brctl: SIOCGIFBR: Invalid argument
> >
> > Example of fixed 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
> > $ brctl show
> > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
> > br0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <repk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Since Arnd said this is not supposed to be backported I presume it
> should go to net-next?
Yes, out of curiosity, is it appropriate to mix "[PATCH net]" and
"[PATCH net-next]" in the same serie ?
Thanks
--
Remi
