netdev - Re: [PATCH] doc/netlink: Expand nftables specification

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: <20251003110535.350f2597@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:05:35 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Remy D. Farley" <one-d-wide@...tonmail.com>
Cc: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/netlink: Expand nftables specification

On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:51:54 +0000 Remy D. Farley wrote:
> Also, it caught another issue. Python yaml doesn't distinguish an empty
> attrset/list and a null-value:
> 
> ```yaml
>   dump: # attrset
>     reply: # null (but attrset expected in code)
>       # no attribute here => dump["reply"] is None
> ```
> 
> I think it's useful to have a machine readable mark to signal that the
> operation supports dump flag, even though there're no attributes outlined yet.
> I fixed it by simply checking for null in ynl_gen_rst.py .

Hm, hm, hm. So for "do" we use empty replies to mean that the reply
_will actually arrive_ but it will have no attributes. Whether an
operation returns a reply or not cannot be changed once operation
was added without breaking uAPI. So the empty reply is a way for us
to "reserve" the reply because we think we may need it in the future.

Or at least that's what my faulty memory of the situation is.

What an empty dump reply is I do not know. How we could have a dump
enumerating objects without producing replies!? :$