On 07/04/2021 16:23, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:14:46PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote: >> On 07/04/2021 15:39, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>>> @@ -1710,7 +1721,8 @@ static int nldev_set_sys_set_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, >>>> >>>> err = nlmsg_parse(nlh, 0, tb, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_MAX - 1, >>>> nldev_policy, extack); >>>> - if (err || !tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_NETNS_MODE]) >>>> + if (err || !tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_NETNS_MODE] || >>>> + tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_COPY_ON_FORK]) >>> >>> Why do we fail if user supplies RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_COPY_ON_FORK? >> >> It's a read-only attribute, if someone tries to set its value I assume it's best >> to return an error. > > Not in netlink world, you need to ignore the parameters that > you don't "know how to handle" and check for must-to-be input only. Not sure I understand. So you expect the set function to remain unchanged in this patch? Isn't it bad that a user can request to change the copy on fork value and get a success return value although nothing happened?
