On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:43:22AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/18/21 7:05 AM, Petr Machata wrote: > > From: Petr Machata <pe...@nvidia.org> > > > > There is currently one policy that covers all attributes for next hop > > object management. Actual validation is then done in code, which makes it > > unobvious which attributes are acceptable when, and indeed that everything > > is rejected as necessary. > > > > In this series, split rtm_nh_policy to several policies that cover various > > aspects of the next hop object configuration, and instead of open-coding > > the validation, defer to nlmsg_parse(). This should make extending the next > > hop code simpler as well, which will be relevant in near future for > > resilient hashing implementation. > > > > This was tested by running tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh. > > Additionally iproute2 was tweaked to issue "nexthop list id" as an > > RTM_GETNEXTHOP dump request, instead of a straight get to test that > > unexpected attributes are indeed rejected. > > > > In patch #1, convert attribute validation in nh_valid_get_del_req(). > > > > In patch #2, convert nh_valid_dump_req(). > > > > In patch #3, rtm_nh_policy is cleaned up and renamed to rtm_nh_policy_new, > > because after the above two patches, that is the only context that it is > > used in. > > > > Petr Machata (3): > > nexthop: Use a dedicated policy for nh_valid_get_del_req() > > nexthop: Use a dedicated policy for nh_valid_dump_req() > > nexthop: Specialize rtm_nh_policy > > > > net/ipv4/nexthop.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) > > > > good cleanup. thanks for doing this. Did you run fib_nexthops.sh > selftests on the change? Seems right, but always good to run that script > which has functional tests about valid attribute combinations.
"This was tested by running tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh" :)
