netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] tc: pedit: Support JSON dumping

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:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:09:38 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] tc: pedit: Support JSON dumping

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:23:04 -0600
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:

> On 4/23/20 3:59 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
> > 
> > Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> writes:
> >   
> >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:06:15 +0300
> >> Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> +			print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, ": %s",
> >>> +				     cmd ? "add" : "val");
> >>> +			print_string(PRINT_JSON, "cmd", NULL,
> >>> +				     cmd ? "add" : "set");  
> >>
> >> Having different outputs for JSON and file here. Is that necessary?
> >> JSON output is new, and could just mirror existing usage.  
> > 
> > This code outputs this bit:
> > 
> >             {
> >               "htype": "udp",
> >               "offset": 0,
> >               "cmd": "set",   <----
> >               "val": "3039",
> >               "mask": "ffff0000"
> >             },
> > 
> > There are currently two commands, set and add. The words used to
> > configure these actions are set and add as well. The way these commands
> > are dumped should be the same, too. The only reason why "set" is
> > reported as "val" in file is that set used to be the implied action.
> > 
> > JSON doesn't have to be backward compatible, so it should present the
> > expected words.
> >   
> 
> Stephen: do you agree?

Sure that is fine, maybe a comment would help?