From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netlink: add NLA_REJECT policy type Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:39:38 +0200 Message-ID: <1537274378.2957.23.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20180913084603.7979-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20180913193004.GF4590@localhost.localdomain> <20180913212742.GC3876@unicorn.suse.cz> <20180913215839.GI27095@localhost.localdomain> <1537177132.2957.6.camel@sipsolutions.net> <847cc635-cb90-821d-5824-07e7f941db75@mojatatu.com> (sfid-20180918_143456_916147_A6997092) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jbenc@redhat.com To: Jamal Hadi Salim , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Michal Kubecek Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:39726 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726812AbeIRSMQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:12:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <847cc635-cb90-821d-5824-07e7f941db75@mojatatu.com> (sfid-20180918_143456_916147_A6997092) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 08:34 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > Maybe it would be better to have NLA_IGNORE instead? > > > > I don't think so, it doesn't give any feedback to the application author > > that they're doing something wrong. > > > > Maybe time to introduce kernel side access-control flags? > Read/Write permissions for example. Attrs marked as read only > (in the kernel) cannot be written to. I dunno, that might work for ethtool, but I want to use it for something that's not even an attribute you could think about writing to, but the result of some operation you started. What would the practical difference be though? Hopefully you wouldn't have write-only attributes, and then NLA_REJECT is basically equivalent? johannes