On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 13:56 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > I suppose we should, at least the part that attribute with NLA_NESTED > > > policy has NLA_F_NESTED flag. I'm not so sure about the opposite (i.e. > > > that attributes with other policies do not have the flag) as when I was > > > checking where kernel accesses nlattr::nla_type directly rather than > > > with nla_type(), I stumbled upon an attribute NL80211_ATTR_VENDOR_DATA > > > which has policy NLA_BINARY but is sometimes a nest, AFAICS. > > > > I guess anyway we can only do it for *new* things, not really for all > > existing attributes. > > Right... but what I wanted to say is that if there is already (at least) > one attribute which may or may not be a nest, depending on a context, we > should expect there may be also new attributes like that in the future. Yeah, but we can handle that as we see it? I just reposted my strict validation series - maybe we can right now, as it's not released yet, quickly add an NL_VALIDATED_NESTED_FLAG or so to it? Do you want to take a stab at that? I have to go now, but I could check in the next few days. johannes
