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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 19:50:37 +0000 From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [net-next PATCH 1/2] devlink: add dry run attribute to flash update > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2022 11:51 AM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> > Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; netdev@...r.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/2] devlink: add dry run attribute to flash update > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 16:32:30 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > > Hm, yes. Don't invest too much effort into rendering per-cmd policies > > > right now, tho. I've started working on putting the parsing policies > > > in YAML last Friday. This way we can auto-gen the policy for the kernel > > > and user space can auto-gen the parser/nl TLV writer. Long story short > > > we can kill two birds with one stone if you hold off until I have the > > > format ironed out. For now maybe just fork the policies into two - > > > with and without dry run attr. We'll improve the granularity later > > > when doing the YAML conversion. > > > > Any update on this? > > > > FWIW I started looking at iproute2 code to dump policy and check > > whether a specific attribute is accepted by the kernel. > > Yes and no, I coded a little bit of it up, coincidentally I have a YAML > policy for genetlink policy querying if that's helpful: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kuba/linux.git/tree/tools/net/ynl > /samples/nlctrl.c?h=gnl-gen-dpll > I'll take a look at this. > I'll try to wrap up the YAML format by today / tomorrow and send an > early RFC, but the codegen part (and everything else really) still > requires much work. I'd like to see it and provide some early review. > Probably another month until I can post the first > non-RFC with error checking, kernel policy generation, uAPI generation > etc. Ya, I figured this would take quite a lot of effort to get to completion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists