Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8/23/2023 4:41 AM, Donald Hunter wrote: >> This schema is largely a copy of the genetlink-legacy schema with the >> following additions: >> >> - a top-level protonum property, e.g. 0 (for NETLINK_ROUTE) >> - add netlink-raw to the list of protocols supported by the schema >> - add a value property to mcast-group definitions >> >> This schema is very similar to genetlink-legacy and I considered >> making the changes there and symlinking to it. On balance I felt that >> might be problematic for accurate schema validation. >> > > Ya, I think they have to be distinct to properly validate. > >> Signed-off-by: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/netlink/netlink-raw.yaml | 414 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 414 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/netlink/netlink-raw.yaml >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/netlink/netlink-raw.yaml b/Documentation/netlink/netlink-raw.yaml >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..ef7bd07eab62 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/netlink/netlink-raw.yaml >> @@ -0,0 +1,414 @@ >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) >> +%YAML 1.2 >> +--- >> +$id: http://kernel.org/schemas/netlink/genetlink-legacy.yaml# >> +$schema: https://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema >> + >> +# Common defines >> +$defs: >> + uint: >> + type: integer >> + minimum: 0 >> + len-or-define: >> + type: [ string, integer ] >> + pattern: ^[0-9A-Za-z_]+( - 1)?$ >> + minimum: 0 >> + >> +# Schema for specs >> +title: Protocol >> +description: Specification of a genetlink protocol > > If this is for netlink-raw, shouldn't this not say genetlink? Same > elsewhere? or am I misunderstanding something? It's a good question. The schema definitions are currently strict supersets of genetlink: genetlink <= genetlink-c <= genetlink-legacy <= netlink-raw As you noted below, there's only 2 additions needed for the netlink raw families, protonum and mcast-group value. I would be happy to change the description and other references to genetlink in this spec, but I'd like to hear Jakub's thoughts about minimal modification vs a more thorough rewording. Perhaps a middle ground would be to extend the top-level description to say "genetlink or raw netlink" and qualify that all mention of genetlink also applies to raw netlink. Either way, I just noticed that the schema $id does need to be updated. >> +type: object >> +required: [ name, doc, attribute-sets, operations ] >> +additionalProperties: False >> +properties: >> + name: >> + description: Name of the genetlink family. >> + type: string >> + doc: >> + type: string >> + version: >> + description: Generic Netlink family version. Default is 1. >> + type: integer >> + minimum: 1 >> + protocol: >> + description: Schema compatibility level. Default is "genetlink". >> + enum: [ genetlink, genetlink-c, genetlink-legacy, netlink-raw ] # Trim >> + # Start netlink-raw > > I guess the netlink raw part is only below this? Or does netlink raw > share more of the generic netlink code than I thought? Raw netlink is, so far, the same as genetlink-legacy with the addition of hard-coded protocol ids. >> + protonum: >> + description: Protocol number to use for netlink-raw >> + type: integer >> + # End netlink-raw [...] >> + # Start netlink-raw >> + value: >> + description: Value of the netlink multicast group in the uAPI. >> + type: integer >> + # End netlink-raw
