On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 14:38, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 13:58:04 +0100 Donald Hunter wrote: > > > @@ -466,6 +466,8 @@ class TypeBinary(Type): > > > def _attr_policy(self, policy): > > > if 'exact-len' in self.checks: > > > mem = 'NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(' + str(self.get_limit('exact-len')) + ')' > > > + elif 'max-len' in self.checks: > > > + mem = 'NLA_POLICY_MAX_LEN(' + str(self.get_limit('max-len')) + ')' > > > > This takes precedence over min-length. What if both are set? The logic > > should probably check and use NLA_POLICY_RANGE > > Or we could check if len(self.checks) <= 1 early and throw our hands up > if there is more, for now? > > > > else: > > > mem = '{ ' > > > if len(self.checks) == 1 and 'min-len' in self.checks: > > > > Perhaps this should use NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN ? In fact the current code > > looks broken to me because the NLA_BINARY len check in validate_nla() is > > a max length check, right? > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.1/source/lib/nlattr.c#L499 > > > > The alternative is you emit an explicit initializer that includes the > > correct NLA_VALIDATE_* type and sets type, min and/or max. > > Yeah, this code leads to endless confusion. We use NLA_UNSPEC (0) > if min-len is set (IOW we don't set .type to NLA_BINARY). NLA_UNSPEC > has different semantics for len. Oh, I see it now. So it's dropping through to here: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.1/source/lib/nlattr.c#L555 > Agreed that we should probably clean this up, but no bug AFAICT. Yeah, it's definitely surprising that the meaning of .len varies.