netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 12/13] genetlink: allow families to use split ops directly

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:   Fri, 4 Nov 2022 15:19:20 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, razor@...ckwall.org,
        gnault@...hat.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com, fw@...len.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 12/13] genetlink: allow families to use
 split ops directly

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 23:10:57 +0100 Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > +		/* Check sort order */
> > +		if (a->cmd < b->cmd)
> > +			continue;  
> If I understand correctly, the goal of the below checks, between a and b, is to
> enforce flags consitency between the do and the dump.
> Does this work if the cmds in the struct genl_split_ops are declared randomly (
> ie the do and the dump are separated by another cmd)?

I'm trying to go further and enforce sort order as weel (see comment
above the check), so that we can use binary search if we ever get to 
a large enough family for it to matter.