netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] netlink: extended ACK reporting

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:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:05:38 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        pablo@...filter.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] netlink: extended ACK reporting

Le 13/04/2017 à 15:29, Johannes Berg a écrit :
> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 15:27 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, some - very few - families still insist on using attribute 0,
>>> perhaps parsing by hand or so. Like you say though, the entire
>>> infrastructure makes that hard and undesirable, so I don't really
>>> see
>>> why we need to invest the extra code/work into making it work
>>> *here*,
>>> especially since it's such a corner case as I described in my other
>>> email.
>>
>> Here is an example:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/co
>> mmit/?id=31e20bad8d58
>>
>> I also see one in openvswitch (I will send a similar patch), but
>> there are probably some others.
> 
> Yeah. I'm not really sure what the point of such a patch is though -
> the API is set now, and can't really be changed.
The goal is to avoid copy and paste error, like it was done in diag subsystem.

> 
> Anyway, the ones you point out are only used for *output* by the
> kernel, so wouldn't be affected by any "missing attribute" reporting
> anyway.
Sure. It was just to mention that attribute 0 exists somewhere.
The other 0 attribute is OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID. But I agree with you that it
remains a corner case.

Nicolas