Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
Cc: Antony Antony <antony.antony@secunet.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Christian Langrock <christian.langrock@secunet.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:05:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210902090521.GF9115@gauss3.secunet.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210901151402.GA2557@altlinux.org>

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:14:02PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> 
> The following part of this patch is ABI break:
> 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> > index ffc6a5391bb7..6e8095106192 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
> > @@ -213,6 +213,11 @@ enum {
> >  	XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO,
> >  #define XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO XFRM_MSG_GETSPDINFO
> > 
> > +	XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT,
> > +#define XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT XFRM_MSG_SETDEFAULT
> > +	XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT,
> > +#define XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT XFRM_MSG_GETDEFAULT
> > +
> >  	XFRM_MSG_MAPPING,
> >  #define XFRM_MSG_MAPPING XFRM_MSG_MAPPING
> >  	__XFRM_MSG_MAX
> 
> After this change, strace no longer builds with the following diagnostics:
> 
> ../../../src/xlat/nl_xfrm_types.h:162:1: error: static assertion failed: "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26"
>   162 | static_assert((XFRM_MSG_MAPPING) == (0x26), "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26");

Thanks for the report! In the meantime there is a fix proposed:

https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg764744.html

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-02  9:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210331144843.GA25749@moon.secunet.de>
2021-07-16  9:15 ` [PATCH " Antony Antony
2021-07-18  3:26   ` kernel test robot
2021-07-18  7:11 ` [PATCH v2 " Antony Antony
2021-07-22  9:43   ` Steffen Klassert
2021-08-11 16:14   ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-08-17 11:19     ` Antony Antony
2021-08-25 10:01       ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35         ` [PATCH ipsec 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35           ` [PATCH ipsec 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35           ` [PATCH ipsec 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08  1:35             ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08  7:23               ` [PATCH ipsec v2 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08  7:23                 ` [PATCH ipsec v2 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08  7:23                 ` [PATCH ipsec v2 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-08  7:23                 ` [RFC PATCH iproute2 v2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46                 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46                   ` [PATCH ipsec v3 1/2] xfrm: make user policy API complete Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46                   ` [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: notify default policy on update Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-14 14:46                   ` [RFC PATCH iproute2 v2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-15  9:19                   ` [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: fix uapi for the default policy Antony Antony
2021-09-15  9:55                     ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-17  7:06                   ` Steffen Klassert
2021-09-17  7:54                     ` Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-07 19:35           ` [RFC PATCH iproute2] xfrm: enable to manage default policies Nicolas Dichtel
2021-09-01 15:14   ` [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy Dmitry V. Levin
2021-09-02  9:05     ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2021-09-19 22:40   ` Paul Cercueil
2021-09-21  6:33     ` Steffen Klassert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210902090521.GF9115@gauss3.secunet.de \
    --to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    --cc=antony.antony@secunet.com \
    --cc=christian.langrock@secunet.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec-next] xfrm: Add possibility to set the default to block if we have no policy' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).