linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/11] wireguard: netlink: ynl conversion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aRQGIhazVqTdS2R_@zx2c4.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 04:59:30 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jordan Rife <jordan@...fe.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/11] wireguard: netlink: ynl conversion

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 06:07:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed,  5 Nov 2025 18:32:09 +0000 Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> > This series completes the implementation of YNL for wireguard,
> > as previously announced[1].
> > 
> > This series consist of 5 parts:
> > 1) Patch 01-03 - Misc. changes
> > 2) Patch    04 - Add YNL specification for wireguard
> > 3) Patch 05-07 - Transition to a generated UAPI header
> > 4) Patch    08 - Adds a sample program for the generated C library
> > 5) Patch 09-11 - Transition to generated netlink policy code
> > 
> > The main benefit of having a YNL specification is unlocked after the
> > first 2 parts, the RFC version seems to already have spawned a new
> > Rust netlink binding[2] using wireguard as it's main example.
> > 
> > Part 3 and 5 validates that the specification is complete and aligned,
> > the generated code might have a few warts, but they don't matter too
> > much, and are mostly a transitional problem[3].
> > 
> > Part 4 is possible after part 2, but is ordered after part 3,
> > as it needs to duplicate the UAPI header in tools/include.
> 
> These LGTM, now.
> 
> Jason what's your feeling here? AFAICT the changes to the wg code
> are quite minor now. 

Reviewing it this week. Thanks for bumping this in my queue.

Jason