On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:30:50PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote: > 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? The same goes for all netlink attributes, user can send some *_RES_* attribute to _set_ and we won't fail. The same goes for rtnetlink too. Thanks
