On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 09:53:18AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:50:30 +0100 Remi Pommarel wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 08:59:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:31:39 +0100 Remi Pommarel wrote:
quoted
In compat mode SIOC{G,S}IFBR ioctls were only supporting
BRCTL_GET_VERSION returning an artificially version to spur userland
tool to use SIOCDEVPRIVATE instead. But some userland tools ignore that
and use SIOC{G,S}IFBR unconditionally as seen with busybox's brctl.
Example of non working 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
$ brctl show
brctl: SIOCGIFBR: Invalid argument
Example of fixed 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
$ brctl show
bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
br0
Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <redacted>
Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Since Arnd said this is not supposed to be backported I presume it
should go to net-next?
Yes, out of curiosity, is it appropriate to mix "[PATCH net]" and
"[PATCH net-next]" in the same serie ?
It's not, mixing makes it quite hard to know what's needed where.
Also hard to automate things on our end. Let me pick out the first
patch, I'll be sending a PR to Linus shortly and then merge net into
net-next. At which point you'll be able to rebase on top of net-next
and resend just the second patch for net-next..
Ok sounds good to me thanks.