Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-07-28 13:58
>
>>I'm a little confused by your comment, could you be a bit more
>>specific? Are you basing your comment strictly on the text above? If
>>so, the problem may be my poor excuse for documentation rather then my
>>poor excuse for implementation :)
>>
>>I am using the generic netlink interface, in what I believe to be a
>>"correct" fashion - please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> The netlink bits are spread around all patches so I just quoted
> on this comment. By adding functions like netlbl_align(),
> netlbl_put_u8(), netlbl_put_hdr() writing a netlink header
> etc. you are just duplicating the already existing interfaces
> found in net/netlink.h and net/genetlink.h.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand your point a bit
better now.
It sounds like you main concern is that I'm not using the netlink
attribute interfaces, yes? I looked at using those originally but
decided not to use them for the following reasons:
1. They are listed as "optional" in the documents I read
2. They add at least an extra 32 bits to each attribute
3. There seems to be plenty of users in net/ipv4 who do not make
use of attributes (a *quick* look again reveals none)
4. Since I'm reading messages from userspace I can't trust the
message contents regardless of it's use of attributes
5. Harder to work with in userspace without using a netlink
library, which would create an extra dependency for tools which
talk to the NetLabel subsystem
Basically, I saw no requirement to use the netlink attributes and no
advantage so I didn't. Is this reasonable, or do you feel the use of
attributes is a requirement?
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
