netdev - Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

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, 07 Apr 2017 21:46:46 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, pablo@...filter.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:43 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I have no strong opinions about string length.
> 
> In my opinion, I would like to believe that if someone tried to get a
> networking patch applied that emitted a rediculously long string then
> we would give them feedback about how that is not acceptable.  Right?

Agree with this, I don't really see much point in adding an extra
warning. There's an implicit (multi-KB though) limit as well in the
message size ;-)

> I suspect that someone will eventually give us a hard time about the
> strings wrt. internationalization. :-) It's solvable at least
> partially in userspace I suppose.

I tend to think of the strings more of a debugging aid, but that's a
good point.

Perhaps we should have a macro that has the strings - similar to the
inline function I put into netlink - but if we make that a macro we can
put the strings into a separate section to be able to find them more
easily for later translation, and optionally even omit them entirely
(to satisfy the kernel tinification folks)?

johannes