netdev - [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] tools: ynl-gen: don't init enum checks for classic netlink

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: <20250425024311.1589323-12-kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:43:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	horms@...nel.org,
	donald.hunter@...il.com,
	jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
	sdf@...ichev.me,
	jdamato@...tly.com,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] tools: ynl-gen: don't init enum checks for classic netlink

rt-link has a vlan-protocols enum with:

   name: 8021q     value: 33024
   name: 8021ad    value: 34984

It's nice to have, since it converts the values to strings in Python.
For C, however, the codegen is trying to use enums to generate strict
policy checks. Parsing such sparse enums is not possible via policies.

Since for classic netlink we don't support kernel codegen and policy
generation - skip the auto-generation of checks from enums.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
---
v2:
 - move the comment about the skip before the if
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/4b8339b7-9dc6-4231-a60f-0c9f6296358a@intel.com
---
 tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py | 46 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py b/tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py
index 2d185c7ea16c..eda9109243e2 100755
--- a/tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py
+++ b/tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py
@@ -357,26 +357,10 @@ from lib import SpecFamily, SpecAttrSet, SpecAttr, SpecOperation, SpecEnumSet, S
         if 'byte-order' in attr:
             self.byte_order_comment = f" /* {attr['byte-order']} */"
 
-        if 'enum' in self.attr:
-            enum = self.family.consts[self.attr['enum']]
-            low, high = enum.value_range()
-            if 'min' not in self.checks:
-                if low != 0 or self.type[0] == 's':
-                    self.checks['min'] = low
-            if 'max' not in self.checks:
-                self.checks['max'] = high
-
-        if 'min' in self.checks and 'max' in self.checks:
-            if self.get_limit('min') > self.get_limit('max'):
-                raise Exception(f'Invalid limit for "{self.name}" min: {self.get_limit("min")} max: {self.get_limit("max")}')
-            self.checks['range'] = True
-
-        low = min(self.get_limit('min', 0), self.get_limit('max', 0))
-        high = max(self.get_limit('min', 0), self.get_limit('max', 0))
-        if low < 0 and self.type[0] == 'u':
-            raise Exception(f'Invalid limit for "{self.name}" negative limit for unsigned type')
-        if low < -32768 or high > 32767:
-            self.checks['full-range'] = True
+        # Classic families have some funny enums, don't bother
+        # computing checks we only need them for policy
+        if not family.is_classic():
+            self._init_checks()
 
         # Added by resolve():
         self.is_bitfield = None
@@ -401,6 +385,28 @@ from lib import SpecFamily, SpecAttrSet, SpecAttr, SpecOperation, SpecEnumSet, S
         else:
             self.type_name = '__' + self.type
 
+    def _init_checks(self):
+        if 'enum' in self.attr:
+            enum = self.family.consts[self.attr['enum']]
+            low, high = enum.value_range()
+            if 'min' not in self.checks:
+                if low != 0 or self.type[0] == 's':
+                    self.checks['min'] = low
+            if 'max' not in self.checks:
+                self.checks['max'] = high
+
+        if 'min' in self.checks and 'max' in self.checks:
+            if self.get_limit('min') > self.get_limit('max'):
+                raise Exception(f'Invalid limit for "{self.name}" min: {self.get_limit("min")} max: {self.get_limit("max")}')
+            self.checks['range'] = True
+
+        low = min(self.get_limit('min', 0), self.get_limit('max', 0))
+        high = max(self.get_limit('min', 0), self.get_limit('max', 0))
+        if low < 0 and self.type[0] == 'u':
+            raise Exception(f'Invalid limit for "{self.name}" negative limit for unsigned type')
+        if low < -32768 or high > 32767:
+            self.checks['full-range'] = True
+
     def _attr_policy(self, policy):
         if 'flags-mask' in self.checks or self.is_bitfield:
             if self.is_bitfield:
-- 
2.49.0