netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/2] tools/net/ynl: Add multi message support to ynl

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: <m234s9jh0k.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:37:31 +0000
From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,  "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,  Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,  Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,  Jiri
 Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,  Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
  Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,  donald.hunter@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/2] tools/net/ynl: Add multi message
 support to ynl

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:17:00 +0000 Donald Hunter wrote:
>> -    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description='YNL CLI sample')
>> +    description = """
>> +    YNL CLI utility - a general purpose netlink utility that uses YNL specs
>
> YNL specs is intentional or should have been YAML? :)

I'm not sure it was intentional, but YAML is definitely better :-)

>> +    to drive protocol encoding and decoding.
>> +    """
>> +    epilog = """
>> +    The --multi option can be repeated to include several operations
>> +    in the same netlink payload.
>> +    """
>> +
>> +    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=description,
>> +                                     epilog=epilog)
>>      parser.add_argument('--spec', dest='spec', type=str, required=True)
>>      parser.add_argument('--schema', dest='schema', type=str)
>>      parser.add_argument('--no-schema', action='store_true')
>>      parser.add_argument('--json', dest='json_text', type=str)
>> -    parser.add_argument('--do', dest='do', type=str)
>> -    parser.add_argument('--dump', dest='dump', type=str)
>> +    parser.add_argument('--do', dest='do', metavar='OPERATION', type=str)
>> +    parser.add_argument('--dump', dest='dump', metavar='OPERATION', type=str)
>>      parser.add_argument('--sleep', dest='sleep', type=int)
>>      parser.add_argument('--subscribe', dest='ntf', type=str)
>>      parser.add_argument('--replace', dest='flags', action='append_const',
>> @@ -40,6 +50,8 @@ def main():
>>      parser.add_argument('--output-json', action='store_true')
>>      parser.add_argument('--dbg-small-recv', default=0, const=4000,
>>                          action='store', nargs='?', type=int)
>> +    parser.add_argument('--multi', dest='multi', nargs=2, action='append',
>> +                        metavar=('OPERATION', 'JSON_TEXT'), type=str)
>
> We'd only support multiple "do" requests, I wonder if we should somehow
> call this out. Is --multi-do unnecessary extra typing?

I prefer --multi but will update the help text to say "DO-OPERATIION"
and "... several do operations".

> Code itself looks pretty good!