netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: add new RTM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:	roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: add new RTM_GETSTATS message
 to dump link stats

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:04:35 +0100

> I believe that using *any* structs to send over netlink is a mistake.
> Netlink is capable to transfer everything using attrs. Easy to compose,
> easy to parse. easy to extend. Couple of more bytes in the message? So what?
> For newly introduced things, I suggest to do this properly.

It is not so straight-forward.

What to put into the header is a tradeoff.

The most basic use cases should be as efficient as possible, and if we
can put reasonable knobs into the base commend header we should do that
as avoiding attribute processing makes things faster.

And I think in this case it is reasonable to put the mask in there.

The only problem I see with this series is the naming of the netlink
command (it isn't a "new" operation, and the "del" is unused).

Maybe the suggestion to use just "GET" as the name is ok.