On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:53:15AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:26:17 +0200 > > > So this is my first draft of what we'd talked about at netconf. > > I'm not super happy with the way we have to pass the extended > > error struct, but I don't see a way to implement reporting any > > dynamic information (like error offsets) in any other way. > > > > Alexander Shishkin had a nice way of reporting static extended > > error data, but that isn't really suitable for reporting the > > offset or even reporting the broken attribute from nla_parse(). > > > > Speaking of nla_parse(), that'll be somewhat complicated to do > > since we'll have to track the offsets of where we're parsing, > > but it might be possible since the nlattrs are just pointers > > into the message, so (optionally?) passing the skb as well can > > allow us to fill the offset information. > > I like it, nice work. > > I know people want dynamically generated strings and stuff, and we can > get there, but I prefer that the first thing we commit is super simple. > > Someone gave me a hard time about the fact that we've been talking > about this idea for years but nothing ever happens. > > I'm tempted to apply this as-is just to show that person that things > do in fact happen.... eventually :-) We can just send follow up patches to refine, I think it's a good start, Johannes? BTW, for this co-authored effort in designing this: Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks!
