netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 03/23] ovpn: add basic netlink support

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: <a374cd1d-b395-42d6-b7e8-083bd2d2f5dd@openvpn.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:12:25 +0100
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
To: Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, sd@...asysnail.net,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 03/23] ovpn: add basic netlink support

On 19/11/2024 03:05, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
> On 15.11.2024 12:05, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> On 09/11/2024 00:15, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>>> On 29.10.2024 12:47, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>> @@ -37,7 +41,7 @@ static int ovpn_newlink(struct net *src_net, 
>>>> struct net_device *dev,
>>>>   }
>>>>   static struct rtnl_link_ops ovpn_link_ops = {
>>>> -    .kind = "ovpn",
>>>> +    .kind = OVPN_FAMILY_NAME,
>>>
>>> nit: are you sure that the link kind is the same as the GENL family? 
>>> I mean, they are both deriviated from the protocol name that is 
>>> common for both entities, but is it making RTNL kind a derivative of 
>>> GENL family?
>>
>> I just want to use the same name everywhere and I thought it doesn't 
>> make sense to create a separate define (they can be decoupled later 
>> should see any need for that).
>> But I can add:
>>
>> #define OVPN_RTNL_LINK_KIND OVPN_FAMILY_NAME
>>
>> to make this relationship explicit?
> 
> Can we just leave it as literal? This string is going to be a part of 
> ABI and there will be no chance to change it in the future. So, what the 
> purpose to define it using a macro if it's self-descriptive?

I don't truly have a strong opinion, but the netlink family name is also 
expected to not change anytime soon.

Anyway, I see that using the literal is pretty common across all other 
drivers, therefore I'll go for it as well.

> 
> People also like to define a macro with a generic name like DRV_NAME and 
> use it everywhere. What also looks reasonable.

Yeah, that's exactly how I am using OVPN_FAMILY_NAME.
Anyway, I am switching to literal.

Regards,

> 
> -- 
> Sergey

-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.