On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:16:06PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?
What about
#define NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR { .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = ETH_ALEN }
Or even
#define NLA_FIELD_BINARY_EXACT(_len) { .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = (_len) }
#define NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR NLA_FIELD_BINARY_EXACT(ETH_ALEN)
So that one would just:
[MYADDR] = NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR,
and if we change how we parse/validate it, users should be good
already.
Marcelo
