Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <a6fbee05df0efd2528a06922bcb514d321b1a8bc.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 06/15] ethtool: netlink bitset handling
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 04 Jul 2019 15:10:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190704125315.GT20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1562067622.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
         <cb614bebee1686293127194e8f7ced72955c7c7f.1562067622.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
         <20190703114933.GW2250@nanopsycho> <20190703181851.GP20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
         <20190704080435.GF2250@nanopsycho> <20190704115236.GR20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
         <6c070d62ffe342f5bc70556ef0f85740d04ae4a3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20190704121718.GS20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
         <2f1a8edb0b000b4eb7adcaca0d1fb05fdd73a587.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20190704125315.GT20101@unicorn.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 14:53 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 
> >  value: 0b00000000'000000xx'xxxxxxxx'xxxxxxxx
> >  mask:  0b00000000'00000011'11111111'11111111
> 
> One scenario that I can see from the top of my head would be user
> running
> 
>   ethtool -s <dev> advertise 0x...

The "0x..." here would be the *value* in the NLA_BITFIELD32 parlance,
right?

What would the "selector" be? I assume the selector would be "whatever
ethtool knows about"?

> with hex value representing some subset of link modes. Now if ethtool
> version is behind kernel and recognizes fewer link modes than kernel
> but in a way that the number rounded up to bytes or words would be the
> same, kernel has no way to recognize of those zero bits on top of the
> mask are zero on purpose or just because userspace doesn't know about
> them. In general, I believe the absence of bit length information is
> something protocols would have to work around sometimes.
> 
> The submitted implementation doesn't have this problem as it can tell
> kernel "this is a list" (i.e. I'm not sending a value/mask pair, I want
> exactly these bits to be set).

OK, here I guess I see what you mean. You're saying if ethtool were to
send a value/mask of "0..0100/0..0111" you wouldn't know what to do with
BIT(4) as long as the kernel knows about that bit?

I guess the difference now is depending on the operation. NLA_BITFIELD32
is sort of built on the assumption of having a "toggle" operation. If
you want to have a "set to" operation, then you don't really need the
selector/mask at all, just the value.

johannes