netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] ulp: Generalize ULP infrastructure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:23:03 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
CC:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rohit Seth <rohit@...ntonium.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] ulp: Generalize ULP infrastructure

On 08/08/17 20:50, Tom Herbert wrote:
> It's a tradeoff. The nice thing about using strings is that we don't
> need maintain a universal enum.
Hmm, that makes it sound as though you're intending for random out-of-tree
 modules to add these things; since if they're in-tree it's easy for them
 to get enum values assigned when they're added.  Do we really want to
 encourage sticking random module code into the network stack like this?

In any case, if you go with the enum approach and later it _does_ prove
 necessary to have more flexibility, you can have enum values dynamically
 assigned (like genetlink manages to do); and programs using the existing
 fixed IDs will continue to work.  It's much harder to go the other way...

-Ed