On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 04:41:16PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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,
Yes, that's how I understoold Johannes' proposal above.
Michal Kubecek
