On 12/5/17 10:40 AM, David Miller wrote: > 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. +1 > > You might be right. > > Ok let's just go with the warning + existing behavior for now. Is the patch I sent as an attachment good or should I re-send standalone? (don't see it in patchwork)
