netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tools/net/ynl: fix cli.py --subscribe feature

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: <20240903150026.34de5a1d@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 15:00:26 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
Cc: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
 liuhangbin@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tools/net/ynl: fix cli.py --subscribe feature

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:08:54 +0100 Donald Hunter wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 10:51:13 +0100 Donald Hunter wrote:  
> > > Reviewed-by: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>  
> >
> > Any preference on passing self.rsp_by_value, vs .decode() accessing
> > ynl.rsp_by_value on its own?  
> 
> .decode() accessing ynl.rsp_by_value would be cleaner, but I am
> working on some notification fixes that might benefit from the map
> being passed as a parameter. The netlink-raw families use a msg id
> scheme that is neither unified nor directional. It's more like a mix
> of both where req and rsp use different values but notifications reuse
> the req values. I suspect that to fix that we'd need to introduce a
> dict for ntf_by_value and then the parameter would be context
> specific. OVS reuses req/rsp values for notifications as well, but it
> uses a unified scheme, and that's mostly a problem for ynl-gen-c. 

I was worried you'd say it's ID reuse related. That is tricky business.

> We could choose the cleaner approach just now and revisit it as part of
> fixing notifications for netlink-raw?

That's my intuition; there's a non-zero chance that priorities will
change or we'll head in a different direction, and the extra arg will
stick around confusing readers.