Le 07/02/2025 à 00:39, Jakub Kicinski a écrit : > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:50:26 +0100 Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> Since the below commit, there is no way to see if the netns_local property >> is set on a device. Let's add a netlink attribute to advertise it. > > I think the motivation for the change may be worth elaborating on. > It's a bit unclear to me what user space would care about this > information, a bit of a "story" on how you hit the issue could > be useful perhaps? The uAPI is new but the stable tag indicates > regression.. To make it short: we were trying a new NIC with a custom distro provided by a vendor (with out of tree drivers). We were unable to move the interface in another netns. Thanks to ethtool we were able to confirm that the 'netns-local' flag was set. Having this information helps debugging. > >> @@ -2041,6 +2042,7 @@ static int rtnl_fill_ifinfo(struct sk_buff *skb, >> netif_running(dev) ? READ_ONCE(dev->operstate) : >> IF_OPER_DOWN) || >> nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_LINKMODE, READ_ONCE(dev->link_mode)) || >> + nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_NETNS_LOCAL, dev->netns_local) || > > Maybe nla_put_flag() ? Or do you really care about false being there? It depends if the commit is backported or not. If it won't be backported, having the false value helps to know that the kernel support this attribute (and so that the property is not set). FWIW, I will be off for one week, I will come back to this later. > The 3 bytes wasted on padding always makes me question when people pick > NLA_u8. > >> nla_put_u32(skb, IFLA_MTU, READ_ONCE(dev->mtu)) || >> nla_put_u32(skb, IFLA_MIN_MTU, READ_ONCE(dev->min_mtu)) || >> nla_put_u32(skb, IFLA_MAX_MTU, READ_ONCE(dev->max_mtu)) ||
