netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v3 1/2] dcb: add new pcp-prio parameter to dcb app

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:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 19:19:35 +0000
From:   <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com>
To:     <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <dsahern@...nel.org>, <petrm@...dia.com>,
        <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v3 1/2] dcb: add new pcp-prio parameter to
 dcb app

> On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:19:06 +0000
> <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > Trying to understand your comment.
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking about not producing any JSON output with the symbolic
> > > > PCP values? eg. ["1de", 1] -> [8, 1]. So basically print with PRINT_FP
> > > > in case of printing in JSON context?
> > > >
> > > > /Daniel
> > >
> > > What does output look like in json and non-json versions?
> >
> > non-JSON: pcp-prio 1de:1
> > JSON    : {"pcp_prio":[["1de",1]]}
> 
> Would the JSON be better as:
>         { "pcp_prio" :[ { "1de":1 } ] }
> 
> It looks like the PCP values are both unique and used in a name/value manner.

In this case I think it would be best to stay consistent with the rest
of the dcb app code. All priority mappings are printed using the
dcb_app_print_filtered() (now also the pcp-prio), which creates an
array, for whatever reason. 

If you are OK with this, I will go ahead and create v4, with the print
warning removed.

/Daniel

> 
> >
> > > My concern that the json version would be awkward and have colons in it, but looks
> > > like it won't.
> >
> > Yeah, the "%s:" format is only used in non-JSON context, so we are good
> > here.
> >
> > >
> > > For the unknown key type is printing error necessary? Maybe just show it in numeric form.
> >
> > No not necessary, I'll get rid of it.
>