netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 05/20] netlink: Add new socket option to enable strict checking on dumps

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, 05 Oct 2018 20:45:52 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
CC:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jbenc@...hat.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/20] netlink: Add new socket option to enable strict checking on dumps

On October 5, 2018 8:43:55 PM GMT+02:00, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>On 10/5/18 11:36 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netlink.h b/include/linux/netlink.h
>>> index 88c8a2d83eb3..36bdca2aa42d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/netlink.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/netlink.h
>>> @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ struct netlink_callback {
>>>  	struct netlink_ext_ack	*extack;
>>>  	u16			family;
>>>  	u16			min_dump_alloc;
>>> +	unsigned int		strict_check:1,
>>> +				unused:31;
>> 
>> I like this idea a lot. :) but I'm not a fan of bitfields if not
>> necessary. Is that really necessary here?
>> 
>
>no strong opinions on a bitfield vs a bool.

Just feels like this is something that is
rarely used. Having a bool or traditional 
flag might be more readable and easier to 
maintain. :)