netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v7] openvswitch: enable NSH support

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: <CFF8EF42F1132E4CBE2BF0AB6C21C58D787F5387@ESESSMB107.ericsson.se>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:36:12 +0000
From:   Jan Scheurich <jan.scheurich@...csson.com>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
CC:     "Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        "e@...g.me" <e@...g.me>, "blp@....org" <blp@....org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v7] openvswitch: enable NSH support

> From: Jiri Benc [mailto:jbenc@...hat.com]

> > So what is the correct layout for MASKED_SET action with nested fields?
> > 1. All nested values, followed by all nested masks, or
> > 2. For each nested field value followed by mask?
> >
> > I guess alternative 1, but just to be sure.
> 
> It's 2. Alternative 1 breaks netlink assumptions, is ugly to implement
> and probably impossible to be properly validated.

OK. For outsiders this was far from obvious :-)

So, for OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET_MASKED any nested attribute, no matter on which nesting level, must contain value directly followed by mask.

If that is the principle of handling masks in Netlink APIs, than we must adhere to it.

BR, Jan