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: <c161e922491c1a2330dcef6741a8cfa7f92999be.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:15:33 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        dsahern@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Genetlink per cmd policies

On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 12:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> > Hm. I guess you could even have both?
> > 
> > 	struct genl_ops *ops;
> > 	struct genl_ops_ext *extops;
> > 
> > and then search both arrays, no need for memcpy/pointer assignment?
> 
> Yup, both should work quite nicely, too. No reason to force one or the
> other.

Indeed.

> Extra n_ops_ext should be fine, I think I can make n_ops a u8 in 
> the first place, since commands themselves are u8s. And 0 is commonly
> unused.

True. I'm not really worried about the extra pointer in the *family*
though, there aren't really all that many families :)

johannes