netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] netfilter: nf_tables: add netlink description

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: <cfcf08c7e29ce3dfc3209245c60beb021e7f421e.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:51:25 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] netfilter: nf_tables: add netlink description

On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 22:47 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:14:43PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Yeah, ok. Each object you had is basically its own policy. I just
> > *removed* having a separate policy for each command in generic netlink,
> > as  ;-)
> 
> But that only affects genetlink users who let genetlink validate and
> parse messages for them. Those validating/parsing the messages
> themselves can still have different policy (and completely different set
> of attributes) for each command.

Sure. I already argued elsewhere though that you should only have one
policy for each set of attributes, but if you do in fact have different
attributes then that's perfectly valid.

Not sure whether I think it all that reasonable, since you then burden
userspace with having to know even more intricate detail and not being
able to share code well between commands, but hey :-)

johannes