linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 11/11] wireguard: netlink: generate netlink code

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: <aRyNiLGTbUfjNWCa@zx2c4.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:15:20 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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 11/11] wireguard: netlink: generate netlink
 code

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 06:32:20PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
>  drivers/net/wireguard/netlink_gen.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/wireguard/netlink_gen.h | 29 +++++++++++
>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/wireguard/netlink_gen.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/wireguard/netlink_gen.h
> +#include "netlink_gen.h"
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause)
> +/* Do not edit directly, auto-generated from: */
> +/*	Documentation/netlink/specs/wireguard.yaml */
> +/* YNL-GEN kernel source */

Similar to what's happening in the tools/ynl/samples build system,
instead of statically generating this, can you have this be generated at
build time, and placed into a generated/ folder that doesn't get checked
into git? I don't see the purpose of having to manually keep this in
check?

(And if for some reason, you refuse to do that, it'd be very nice if the
 DO NOT EDIT header of the file also had the command that generated it,
 in case I need to regenerate it later and can't remember how it was
 done, because I didn't do it the first time, etc. Go's generated files
 usually follow this pattern.

 But anyway, I think I'd prefer, if it's possible, to just have this
 generated at compile time.)

Jason