netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] tools: ynl: stop using libmnl

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]

Message-ID: <CAD4GDZzF55bkoZ_o0S784PmfW4+L_QrG2ofWg6CeQk4FCWTUiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:26:33 +0000
From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, sdf@...gle.com, 
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] tools: ynl: stop using libmnl

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 23:56, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> There is no strong reason to stop using libmnl in ynl but there
> are a few small ones which add up.
>
> First, we do much more advanced netlink level parsing than libmnl
> in ynl so it's hard to say that libmnl abstracts much from us.
> The fact that this series, removing the libmnl dependency, only
> adds <300 LoC shows that code savings aren't huge.
> OTOH when new types are added (e.g. auto-int) we need to add
> compatibility to deal with older version of libmnl (in fact,
> even tho patches have been sent months ago, auto-ints are still
> not supported in libmnl.git).
>
> Second, the dependency makes ynl less self contained, and harder
> to vendor in. Whether vendoring libraries into projects is a good
> idea is a separate discussion, nonetheless, people want to do it.
>
> Third, there are small annoyances with the libmnl APIs which
> are hard to fix in backward-compatible ways.
>
> All in all, libmnl is a great library, but with all the code
> generation and structured parsing, ynl is better served by going
> its own way.

Is the absence of buffer bounds checking intentional, i.e. relying on libasan?