On Thu, 01 Oct 2020 23:03:01 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 11:30 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > +++ b/net/netlink/genetlink.c
> > @@ -1119,6 +1119,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy ctrl_policy_policy[] =
> > {
> > [CTRL_ATTR_FAMILY_ID] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
> > [CTRL_ATTR_FAMILY_NAME] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING,
> > .len = GENL_NAMSIZ - 1 },
> > + [CTRL_ATTR_OP] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
>
> I slightly wonder if we shouldn't make this wider. There's no real
> *benefit* to using a u8 since, due to padding, the attribute actually
> has the same size anyway (up to U32), and we also still need to validate
> it actually exists.
>
> However, if we ever run out of command numbers in some family (nl80211
> is almost half way :-) ) then I believe we still have some reserved
> space in the genl header that we could use for extensions, but if then
> we have to also go around and change a bunch of other interfaces like
> this, it'll just be so much harder, and ... we'd probably just be
> tempted to multiplex onto an "extension command" or something? Or maybe
> then we should have a separate genl family at that point?
>
> (Internal interfaces are much easier to change)
>
> Dunno. Just a thought. We probably won't ever get there, it just sort of
> rubs me the wrong way that we'd be restricting this in an "unfixable"
> API for no real reason :)
Makes sense, I'll make it a u32. Gotta respin, anyway.
> > - if (!rt->policy)
> > + if (tb[CTRL_ATTR_OP]) {
> > + err = genl_get_cmd(nla_get_u8(tb[CTRL_ATTR_OP]), rt, &op);
>
> OK, so maybe if we make that wider we also have to make the argument to
> genl_get_cmd() wider so we don't erroneously return op 1 if you ask for
> 257, but that's in an at least 32-bit register anyway, presumably?
Ack.
