netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 03/25] netlink: introduce NLM_F_DUMP_PROPER

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:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:27:55 +0200
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 03/25] netlink: introduce
 NLM_F_DUMP_PROPER_HDR flag

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:18:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> I didn't find this in the linked thread.

Maybe it was suggested in another thread or in person on a conference,
I can't remember, it's too long ago, sorry.

> What I find interesting and convincing is one of Dave's points:
> 
> "I'm beginning to wonder if we can just change this unilaterally to
> not ignore unrecognized attributes.
> 
> I am increasingly certain that things that would "break" we wouldn't
> want to succeed anyways." [1]

It's unfortunate we can't do that. I'd like it.

> But a socket option or this header flag both sound acceptable to me. Was
> there any more detail on how a socket option would look like, i.e. an
> api proposal or something?

Look at how NETLINK_CAP_ACK and NETLINK_EXT_ACK is implemented.

 Jiri