netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX

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:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:21:15 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than
 TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 02:30:17PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>On 17-04-28 03:02 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:22:53AM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>
>[..]
>> > Maybe I am misunderstanding:
>> > Recall, this is what it looks like with this patchset:
>> > <nlh><subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX]
>> > 
>> > TCA_ROOT_XXX is very subsystem specific. classifiers, qdiscs and many
>> > subsystems defined their own semantics for that TLV level. This specific
>> > "dump max" is very very specific to actions. They were crippled by the
>> > fact you could only send 32 at a time - this allows more to be sent.
>> > 
>> > I thought initially you meant:
>> > <nlh>[NLA_XXX]<subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX]
>> > 
>> > I think at the NLA_XXX you could fit netlink wide TLVs - but if i said
>> > "do a large dump" it is of no use to any other subsystem.
>> 
>> Okay, I'm sorry, I had couple of beers yesterday so that might be
>> the cause why your msg makes me totally confused :O
>> 
>> All I suggest is to replace NLA_U32 flags you want that does not
>> have any semantics with NLA_FLAGS flags, which eventually will carry
>> the exact same u32, but with predefined semantics, helpers, everything.
>> 
>
>I didnt understand fully Jiri. Are you suggesting a new type called
>NLA_FLAGS which is re-usable elsewhere?

Exactly. That's what I'm saying.