Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
References: <20220929185207.2183473-1-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <20220929185207.2183473-2-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <87leq1uiyc.fsf@nvidia.com> <20220930175452.1937dadd@kernel.org>
 <87pmf9xrrd.fsf@nvidia.com> <20221003092522.6aaa6d55@kernel.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 28.1
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
CC:     Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>,
        Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
        <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>, <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        <edumazet@google.com>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>, <joe@perches.com>,
        <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/6] net: dcb: add new pcp selector to app
 object
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:20:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20221003092522.6aaa6d55@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <87zgebx3zb.fsf@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2022 10:44:51.7672
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c4fe5a54-0dc2-44d5-00cc-08daa5f577aa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT100.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR12MB7020
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE
        autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 09:52:59 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
>> I assumed the policy is much more strict with changes like this. If you
>> think it's OK, I'm fine with it as well.
>> 
>> The userspace (lldpad in particular) is doing the opposite thing BTW:
>> assuming everything in the nest is a DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP. When we start
>> emitting the new attribute, it will get confused.
>
> Can you add an attribute or a flag to the request which would turn
> emitting the new attrs on?

The question is whether it's better to do it anyway. My opinion is that
if a userspace decides to make assumptions about the contents of a TLV,
and neglects to validate the actual TLV type, it's on them, and I'm not
obligated to keep them working. We know about this case, but really any
attribute addition at all could potentially trip some userspace if they
expected something else at this offset.