netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] genetlink: support per-command policy dump

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: <e350fbdadd8dfa07bef8a76631d8ec6a6c6e8fdf.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 02 Oct 2020 16:58:33 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 v2 00/10] genetlink: support per-command policy
 dump


> > Or just give them both? I mean, in many (most?) cases they're anyway
> > going to be the same, so with the patches I posted you could just give
> > them the two different policy indexes, and they can be the same?
> 
> Ah, I missed your posting!

Huh, I even CC'ed you I think?

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201002090944.195891-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net/t/#u

and userspace:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201002102609.224150-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net/t/#u

>  Like this?
> 
> [OP_POLICY]
>    [OP]
>       [DO]   -> u32
>       [DUMP] -> u32

Yeah, that'd work. I'd probably wonder if we shouldn't do

[OP_POLICY]
  [OP] -> (u32, u32)

in a struct with two u32's, since that's quite a bit more compact.

I did only:

[OP_POLICY]
  [OP] -> u32

johannes