From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:30:10 +0100 > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 11:41 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> >> There is no reasonable interpretation for what that application is >> doing, so I think we can safely call that case as buggy. >> >> We are only trying to handle the situation where a U8 attribute >> is presented as a bonafide U32 or a correct U8. >> >> Does this make sense? > > Well the application is buggy, but we don't really know in what way? > Perhaps somebody even did the equivalent of > nla_put_u32(ATTR, cpu_to_le32(x)) > when they noticed it was broken on BE, and end up with a similar case > as I had above. > > I don't think there's a good solution to this, applications must be > fixed anyhow. I'm just saying that I'd save the extra code and stay > compatible with applications as written today, even if they're now > broken on BE - and rely on the warning to fix it. Trying to fix it up > seems to have the potential to just break something else. You might be right. Ok let's just go with the warning + existing behavior for now.
