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;
Message-ID: <3c683fc0d3ea3d07034366a5fbbd5ed5049d48b9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] netlink: add validation of NLA_F_NESTED
 flag
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 02 May 2019 17:07:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190502131416.GE21672@unicorn.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1556798793.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
         <75a0887b3eb70005c272685d8ef9a712f37d7a54.1556798793.git.mkubecek@suse.cz>
         <3e8291cb2491e9a1830afdb903ed2c52e9f7475c.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20190502131416.GE21672@unicorn.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 15:14 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 
> > > @@ -415,7 +418,8 @@ enum netlink_validation {
> > >  #define NL_VALIDATE_STRICT (NL_VALIDATE_TRAILING |\
> > >  			    NL_VALIDATE_MAXTYPE |\
> > >  			    NL_VALIDATE_UNSPEC |\
> > > -			    NL_VALIDATE_STRICT_ATTRS)
> > > +			    NL_VALIDATE_STRICT_ATTRS |\
> > > +			    NL_VALIDATE_NESTED)
> > 
> > This is fine _right now_, but in general we cannot keep adding here
> > after the next release :-)
> 
> Right, that's why I would like to get this into the same cycle as your
> series.

Yeah, I know you know, just wanted state it again :-)

> How about "NLA_F_NESTED is missing" and "NLA_F_NESTED not expected"?

Looks good to me.

johannes