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: <d26ccd875ebac452321343cc9f6a9e8ef990efbf.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 02 Oct 2020 08:29:27 +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 v2 00/10] genetlink: support per-command policy
 dump

On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 17:36 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu,  1 Oct 2020 15:59:23 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > The objective of this series is to dump ethtool policies
> > to be able to tell which flags are supported by the kernel.
> > Current release adds ETHTOOL_FLAG_STATS for dumping extra
> > stats, but because of strict checking we need to make sure
> > that the flag is actually supported before setting it in
> > a request.
> 
> Do we need support for separate .doit and .dumpit policies?
> Or is that an overkill?

I suppose you could make an argument that only some attrs might be
accepted in doit and somewhat others in dumpit, or perhaps none in
dumpit because filtering wasn't implemented?

But still ... often we treat filtering as "advisory" anyway (except
perhaps where there's no doit at all, like the dump_policy thing here),
so it wouldn't matter if some attribute is ending up ignored?

johannes