linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools: ynl: add start-index property for indexed arrays

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]

Message-ID: <20251020163221.2c8347ea@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 16:32:21 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Zahari Doychev <zahari.doychev@...ux.com>
Cc: donald.hunter@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
 ast@...erby.net, matttbe@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
 jiri@...nulli.us, johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools: ynl: add start-index property for indexed
 arrays

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 17:17:37 +0200 Zahari Doychev wrote:
> The Linux tc actions expect that the action order starts from index
> one. To accommodate this, add a start-index property to the ynl spec
> for indexed arrays. This property allows the starting index to be
> specified, ensuring compatibility with consumers that require a
> non-zero-based index.
> 
> For example if we have "start_index = 1" then we get the following
> diff.
> 
>  		ynl_attr_put_str(nlh, TCA_FLOWER_INDEV, obj->indev);
>  	array = ynl_attr_nest_start(nlh, TCA_FLOWER_ACT);
>  	for (i = 0; i < obj->_count.act; i++)
> -		tc_act_attrs_put(nlh, i, &obj->act[i]);
> +		tc_act_attrs_put(nlh, i + 1, &obj->act[i]);
>  	ynl_attr_nest_end(nlh, array);

The first one is just silently skipped by the kernel right?

We need to be selective about what API stupidity we try to
cover up in YNL. Otherwise the specs will be unmanageably complex.
IMO this one should be a comment in the spec explaining that action
0 is ignore and that's it.