On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 15:34 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:17:08 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > Looks like you have this on a per-message basis. I thought it was > > better on an attribute basis because that's really where the issue > > is. > No problem. I'm not that happy with my patchset myself. Just wanted > to point it out in case it's useful.
Yeah, I looked at it, but I think it ended up a bit too complicated really. It does have slightly more validation in some sense, but I don't really think that justifies the complexity? No matter what, we'll always have to deal with the problem of not having this capability on older kernels. One way to work around it would be to add a new NLM_F_REQUEST2 flag, since the kernel currently requires having NLM_F_REQUEST set, NLM_F_REQUEST2 messages would be rejected by existing kernels. Dunno if it's really worth it though, I suspect that family/command-specific detection will work in practically all cases. johannes
