netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] net: nexthop: Add flag to assert that NHGRP reserved fields are zero

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: <20240805152344.2aa5f237@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 15:23:44 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, "David Ahern"
 <dsahern@...nel.org>, Donald Sharp <sharpd@...dia.com>, <mlxsw@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] net: nexthop: Add flag to assert that
 NHGRP reserved fields are zero

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:23:57 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/nexthop.h b/include/uapi/linux/nexthop.h
> index dd8787f9cf39..2ed643207847 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/nexthop.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/nexthop.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ enum {
>  #define NHA_OP_FLAG_DUMP_STATS		BIT(0)
>  #define NHA_OP_FLAG_DUMP_HW_STATS	BIT(1)
>  
> +/* Response OP_FLAGS. */
> +#define NHA_OP_FLAG_RESP_GRP_RESVD_0	BIT(0)

I guess these are op flags, so nobody should have a need to store them,
but having bits mean different things in and out make decoding and
binding generation much harder. Let's not do this unless absolutely
necessary. Perhaps you can start defining response flags from the 
"other end", i.e. bit 31? Chances are the two sides will never "meet".