netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ffe100d99b836d1cf3c63bf9570d34274e83684c.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:37:45 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
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 v2 7/7] netlink: specs: wireless: add a spec
 for nl80211

On Wed, 2024-12-18 at 14:32 +0000, Donald Hunter wrote:
> 
> > > +operations:
> > > +  enum-model: directional
> > > +  list:
> > > +    -
> > > +      name: get-wiphy
> > > +      doc: |
> > > +        Get information about a wiphy or dump a list of all wiphys. Requests to dump get-wiphy
> > > +        should unconditionally include the split-wiphy-dump flag in the request.
> > > +      attribute-set: nl80211-attrs
> > > +      do:
> > > +        request:
> > > +          value: 1
> > > +          attributes:
> > > +            - wiphy
> > > +            - wdev
> > > +            - ifindex
> > > +        reply:
> > > +          value: 3
> > 
> > could the value not reference "get-wiphy" and "new-wiphy" from the
> > command list? That might be easier to understand?
> 
> There is currently no schema or tool support for referencing enum
> constants when defining protocol message ids. Most of the netlink
> families don't have any need for an enumeration of commands in the
> spec; nl80211 is unusual in reporting available commands.

Oh, that's what it is. I'm not sure anyone really needs that now with
the genetlink introspection, though I guess existing tools do use it.

johannes