On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 14:12 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:58 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >
> > > The code looks correct to me but I have some doubts. Having a special
> > > policy for MAC addresses may lead to adding one for IPv4 address (maybe
> > > not, we can use NLA_U32 for them), IPv6 addresses and other data types
> > > with fixed length. Wouldn't it be more helpful to add a variant of
> > > NLA_BINARY (NLA_BINARY_EXACT?) which would fail/warn if attribute length
> > > isn't equal to .len?
> >
> > Yeah, I guess we could do that, and then
> >
> > #define NLA_ETH_ADDR .len = ETH_ALEN, .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT
> > #define NLA_IP6_ADDR .len = 16, .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT
> >
> > or so?
>
> Maybe rather
>
> #define NLA_ETH_ADDR NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = ETH_ALEN
> #define NLA_IP6_ADDR NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = sizeof(struct in6_addr)
>
> so that one could write
>
> { .type = NLA_ETH_ADDR }
Yeah, that's possible. I considered it for a second, but it was slightly
too magical for my taste :-)
Better pick a different "namespace", perhaps NLA_POLICY_ETH_ADDR or so?
johannes
