netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/7] netlink: specs: wireless: add a spec for nl80211

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: <CAD4GDZyCPiw1r02BHA_atDQdhsyVhxg=W1dnwi-Bc_tnkxtVeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:12:33 +0000
From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, 
	donald.hunter@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/7] netlink: specs: wireless: add a spec for nl80211

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 13:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 13:06 +0000, Donald Hunter wrote:
> > Add a rudimentary YNL spec for nl80211 that covers get-wiphy and
> > get-interface.
>
> OK, that says what it's doing, but why?

My main motivation is coverage, for 2 reasons: firstly to flush out
any feature gaps in YNL such as the ones I fixed in this series and
secondly to achieve a critical mass of YNL specs that encourages
people to build more tooling around the specs. YNL is already used for
in-tree test automation and documentation generation. There is
potential for generating strace dumpers and people are starting to use
generated user space code.

> Also, I don't know how we will maintain this if it's not tied to any
> kernel code. What do you suggest? Do you want to just maintain it
> following the nl80211.h spec all the time?

It's a good question. I am okay with maintaining it alongside the
nl80211.h file, which will likely motivate me to write some automation
at least for notifying any divergence. There might come a time when it
becomes desirable to generate some of nl80211.h from the spec, as
Stanislav Fomichev is doing for ethtool here:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241202162936.3778016-1-sdf@fomichev.me/

> > +      name: get-wiphy
> > +      doc: Get information about a wiphy or dump a list of all wiphys
> > +      attribute-set: nl80211-attrs
> > +      do:
> > +        request:
> > +          value: 1
> > +          attributes:
> > +            - wiphy
> > +        reply:
> > +          value: 3
> > +      dump:
> > +        request:
> > +          attributes:
> > +            - wiphy
> >
>
> This already seems wrong - dump wiphy really should unconditionally
> include NL80211_ATTR_SPLIT_WIPHY_DUMP these days.

Yes, the valid parameter attributes should be wiphy, wdev, ifindex and
split-wiphy-dump by the look of it.

Thanks,
Donald.