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: <20251119182727.612321f8@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 18:27:27 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
 <ast@...erby.net>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.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 04/11] netlink: specs: add specification for
 wireguard

On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:19:28 +0000 Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> >> Also fine with me. I'd just like consistent function naming, one way or
> >> another.  
> > 
> > IIUC we're talking about the prefix for the kernel C codegen?
> > Feels a bit like a one-off feature to me, but if we care deeply about
> > it let's add it as a CLI param to the codegen. I don't think it's
> > necessary to include this in the YAML spec.  
> 
> IIUC then adding it as a CLI param is more work, and just moves family details
> to ynl-regen, might as well skip the CLI param then and hack it in the codegen.
> 
> Before posting any new patches, I would like to get consensus on this.

The reason other C naming tunables exist (for legacy families!)
is because we need to give enough hints to C code gen to be able
to use existing kernel uAPI headers.

Random "naming preferences" do not belong in the spec. The spec 
is primarily for user space, and it's used by 4 languages already.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ