On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:18:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
I didn't find this in the linked thread.
Maybe it was suggested in another thread or in person on a conference,
I can't remember, it's too long ago, sorry.
What I find interesting and convincing is one of Dave's points:
"I'm beginning to wonder if we can just change this unilaterally to
not ignore unrecognized attributes.
I am increasingly certain that things that would "break" we wouldn't
want to succeed anyways." [1]
It's unfortunate we can't do that. I'd like it.
But a socket option or this header flag both sound acceptable to me. Was
there any more detail on how a socket option would look like, i.e. an
api proposal or something?
Look at how NETLINK_CAP_ACK and NETLINK_EXT_ACK is implemented.
Jiri