Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] make nla_nest_start() add NLA_F_NESTED flag
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <cover.1556269635.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
 <1dcb87486a96785e3b9e6f337392aa904d977a0d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <20190426111954.GG26549@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <a3626aeca20280e8253b575fe72309b2009474a8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <20190426115629.GH26549@unicorn.suse.cz>
 <18db9ac8b398b215e3523dd5b79c7f86e21864ce.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47f6daf9-2d14-1566-8ed1-fb5d4dd57bf8@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:00:14 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18db9ac8b398b215e3523dd5b79c7f86e21864ce.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 4/26/19 6:17 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 13:56 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 
>>>> I suppose we should, at least the part that attribute with NLA_NESTED
>>>> policy has NLA_F_NESTED flag. I'm not so sure about the opposite (i.e.
>>>> that attributes with other policies do not have the flag) as when I was
>>>> checking where kernel accesses nlattr::nla_type directly rather than
>>>> with nla_type(), I stumbled upon an attribute NL80211_ATTR_VENDOR_DATA
>>>> which has policy NLA_BINARY but is sometimes a nest, AFAICS.
>>>
>>> I guess anyway we can only do it for *new* things, not really for all
>>> existing attributes.
>>
>> Right... but what I wanted to say is that if there is already (at least)
>> one attribute which may or may not be a nest, depending on a context, we
>> should expect there may be also new attributes like that in the future.
> 
> Yeah, but we can handle that as we see it?
> 
> I just reposted my strict validation series - maybe we can right now, as
> it's not released yet, quickly add an NL_VALIDATED_NESTED_FLAG or so to
> it?
> 
> Do you want to take a stab at that? I have to go now, but I could check
> in the next few days.

What is a valid use case for an attribute sometimes being a nest and
sometimes not? That seems really weird to me (ie., wrong). They should
be 2 separate attributes even if the backend processing is the same.