[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c683fc0d3ea3d07034366a5fbbd5ed5049d48b9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 17:07:49 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] netlink: add validation of NLA_F_NESTED
flag
On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 15:14 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>
> > > @@ -415,7 +418,8 @@ enum netlink_validation {
> > > #define NL_VALIDATE_STRICT (NL_VALIDATE_TRAILING |\
> > > NL_VALIDATE_MAXTYPE |\
> > > NL_VALIDATE_UNSPEC |\
> > > - NL_VALIDATE_STRICT_ATTRS)
> > > + NL_VALIDATE_STRICT_ATTRS |\
> > > + NL_VALIDATE_NESTED)
> >
> > This is fine _right now_, but in general we cannot keep adding here
> > after the next release :-)
>
> Right, that's why I would like to get this into the same cycle as your
> series.
Yeah, I know you know, just wanted state it again :-)
> How about "NLA_F_NESTED is missing" and "NLA_F_NESTED not expected"?
Looks good to me.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists