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: <20201001140911.795b7662@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:09:11 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, 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, 01 Oct 2020 22:55:09 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?

Hm, not as far as I can tell, I was probably typing out the message
fast cause the commit is kinda obivious.

Looking at the code again now I can't tell why it was calling
genlmsg_parse() in the first place. LMK if you remember if there 
was a reason.

Otherwise I'll just reword.