netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] genetlink: use per-op policy for CTRL_CMD

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: <b9be586bd097f76c554d3e404e0344ae817a12f1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Thu, 01 Oct 2020 22:55:09 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, jiri@...nulli.us,
        mkubecek@...e.cz, dsahern@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] genetlink: use per-op policy for
 CTRL_CMD_GETPOLICY

On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 11:30 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Wire up per-op policy for CTRL_CMD_GETPOLICY.
> This saves us a call to genlmsg_parse() and will soon allow
> dumping this policy.

Hmm. Probably should've asked this before - I think the code makes
perfect sense, but I'm not sure how "this" follows?

I mean, we could've saved the genlmsg_parse() call before, with much the
same patch, having the per-op policy doesn't really have any bearing for
that? It was just using a different policy - the family one - instead of
the per-op one, but ...

Am I missing something?

johannes