On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 08:37 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 15:21 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > > > Nice, easy & useful, maybe I'll code it up tomorrow.
> > >
> > > OK I thought about it a bit more and looked at the code, and it's not
> > > actually possible to do easil
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 15:21 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Nice, easy & useful, maybe I'll code it up tomorrow.
> >
> > OK I thought about it a bit more and looked at the code, and it's not
> > actually possible to do easily right now, because we can't actually
> > point to the bad attribut
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 22:12:25 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 21:53 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hm. I like that idea.
> >
> > If we have NLMSGERR_ATTR_OFFS we could accompany that with the sub-
> > policy for that particular attribute, something like
> >
> > [NLMSGERR_ATTR_P
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 21:53 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:40 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > > I would totally support doing that here in the general validation code,
> > > but (again) don't really think NLMSGERR_ATTR_COOKIE is an appropriate
> > > attribute for it.
> >
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:40 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I would totally support doing that here in the general validation code,
> > but (again) don't really think NLMSGERR_ATTR_COOKIE is an appropriate
> > attribute for it.
>
> Hm. Perhaps we can do a partial policy dump into the extack?
Hm
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:34:14PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:25:57 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:22 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > > > > + if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserve
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:31:13 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 21:28 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>
> > > > + if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserved bit set");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Yo
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:34 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > My thinking is that there are no known uses of the cookie, it'd only
Ahh. I completely misinterpreted the word "uses" here - you meant, I
think (now), "uses of the cookie in the way that it was done in ethtool
before". I read over thi
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:25:57 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:22 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > > > + if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserved bit set");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > >
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 21:28 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > > + if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserved bit set");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > You had an export of the valid bits there in ethtool, using the cookie.
> > Just pointing ou
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:05:23PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 08:57 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > +static int nla_validate_mask(const struct nla_policy *pt,
> > +const struct nlattr *nla,
> > +struct netlink_ext_ack *ext
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:22 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > + if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserved bit set");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > You had an export of the valid bits there in ethtool, using the cookie.
> > Just pointing
On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:05:23 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 08:57 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > We don't have good validation policy for existing unsigned int attrs
> > which serve as flags (for new ones we could use NLA_BITFIELD32).
> > With increased use of policy dumping h
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 08:57 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> We don't have good validation policy for existing unsigned int attrs
> which serve as flags (for new ones we could use NLA_BITFIELD32).
> With increased use of policy dumping having the validation be
> expressed as part of the policy is im
We don't have good validation policy for existing unsigned int attrs
which serve as flags (for new ones we could use NLA_BITFIELD32).
With increased use of policy dumping having the validation be
expressed as part of the policy is important. Add validation
policy in form of a mask of supported/vali
15 matches
Mail list logo
