netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] Netlink protocol specs

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:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 11:29:59 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, robh@...nel.org,
        johannes@...solutions.net, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        ecree.xilinx@...il.com, sdf@...gle.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        fw@...len.de, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, razor@...ckwall.org,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] Netlink protocol specs

On Fri, 2023-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> I think the Netlink proto specs are far along enough to merge.
> Filling in all attribute types and quirks will be an ongoing
> effort but we have enough to cover FOU so it's somewhat complete.
> 
> I fully intend to continue polishing the code but at the same
> time I'd like to start helping others base their work on the
> specs (e.g. DPLL) and need to start working on some new families
> myself.
> 
> That's the progress / motivation for merging. The RFC [1] has more
> of a high level blurb, plus I created a lot of documentation, I'm
> not going to repeat it here. There was also the talk at LPC [2].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220811022304.583300-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> [2] https://youtu.be/9QkXIQXkaQk?t=2562
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220930023418.1346263-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230119003613.111778-1-kuba@kernel.org/1

My understanding is that there is agreement on this, so merging as-is.

As possible follow-ups, I think it would be nice to drop the generated
files from the source tree and instead trigger the re-generation on-
demand. Additionally the yaml files could include an SPDX-License-
Identifier in an initial comments, I think.

Thanks,

Paolo

p.s. I guess we have new todo item for the mptcp protocol ;)