netdev - Re: [patch net-next v3 13/13] net: expose devlink port over rtnetlink

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]

Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:37:00 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, tariqt@...dia.com, moshe@...dia.com,
        saeedm@...dia.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 13/13] net: expose devlink port over rtnetlink

Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 04:13:25PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:10:06 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:22:09 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Why produce the empty nest if port is not set?    
>> > 
>> > Empty nest indicates that kernel supports this but there is no devlink
>> > port associated. I see no other way to indicate this :/  
>> 
>> Maybe it's time to plumb policies thru to classic netlink, instead of
>> creating weird attribute constructs?
>
>Not a blocker, FWIW, just pointing out a better alternative.

Or, even better, move RTnetlink to generic netlink. Really, there is no
point to have it as non-generic netlink forever. We moved ethtool there,
why not RTnetlink?