netdev - Re: Genetlink per cmd policies

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: <a772c03bfbc8cf8230df631fe2db6f2dd7b96a2a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:17:47 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, dsahern@...nel.org,
        pablo@...filter.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Genetlink per cmd policies

On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 18:06 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> That's the historic info I guess - I'll take a look at ethtool later and
> see what it's doing there.

Oh, ok, I see how that works ... you *do* have a sort of common/aliased
attribute inside each per-op family that then carries common sub-
attributes. That can be linked into the policy.

I guess that's not a bad idea. I'd still prefer not to add
maxattr/policy into the ops struct because like I said, that's a large
amount of wasted space?

Perhaps then a "struct nla_policy *get_policy(int cmd, int *maxattr)"
function (method) could work, and fall back to just "->policy" and"-
>maxattr" if unset, and then you'd just have to write a few lines of
code for this case? Seems like overall that'd still be smaller than
putting the pointer/maxattr into each and every op struct.

johannes