netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: netlink: basic introduction to Netlink

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220819121604.04d365c3@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:16:04 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, sdf@...gle.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
        benjamin.poirier@...il.com, idosch@...sch.org,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, dsahern@...nel.org,
        fw@...len.de, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
        tgraf@...g.ch, jacob.e.keller@...el.com, svinota.saveliev@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: netlink: basic introduction to
 Netlink

On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 21:07:36 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > The notification contains the same information as the response to the
> > ``CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY`` request. It is most common for "new object"
> > notifications to contain the same exact data as the respective ``GET``.  
> 
> I might say we should remove that second sentence - this is one of those
> murky cases where it's actually sometimes not _possible_ to do due to
> message size limitations etc.
> 
> That said, it's still common, so maybe that's OK, "common" doesn't mean
> "always" and some notifications might obviously differ even if it's
> common.

I'll rephrase, I'll just say that in this case it's the same message.

> > The socket will now receive notifications. It is recommended to use
> > a separate sockets for receiving notifications and sending requests
> > to the kernel. The asynchronous nature of notifications means that
> > they may get mixed in with the responses making the parsing much
> > harder.  
> 
> Not sure I'd say "parsing" here, maybe "message handling"? I mean, it's
> not really about parsing the messages, more about the potentially
> interleaved sequence of handling them. But maybe I'm splitting hairs :)

Yup, that's better. Let me revisit this paragraph, it doesn't read too
smoothly :S