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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:57:45 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, razor@...ckwall.org, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, gnault@...hat.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com, fw@...len.de Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/13] genetlink: allow families to use split ops directly On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:37:41 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > You mean "Full ops would have [...] while split ops allow individual > > > [...]" or so? > > > > Split ops end up being larger as we need a separate entry for each > > do and dump. So I think it's right? > > Indeed. > > Oh, I see now, you were basically saying "it's only 9% bigger for all > that extra flexibility" ... didn't read that right before. Yup, BTW one annoying bit is that we treat maxattr == 0 as "no validation" rather than "reject everything". Right now I add a reject-all policy in the family itself (with two entries, argh), and hook it up to parameter-less dumps. But we could do something else - like modify the behavior in case the op was declared as split at the family level. I opted for having family add the reject-all policy because I code gen the policies based on YAML spec, anyway, so not much extra effort, and the uniformity between different type of ops seems worth maintaining. WDYT?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists