Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] tools: ynl: stop using libmnl

[Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 23:56, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> There is no strong reason to stop using libmnl in ynl but there
> are a few small ones which add up.
>
> First, we do much more advanced netlink level parsing than libmnl
> in ynl so it's hard to say that libmnl abstracts much from us.
> The fact that this series, removing the libmnl dependency, only
> adds <300 LoC shows that code savings aren't huge.
> OTOH when new types are added (e.g. auto-int) we need to add
> compatibility to deal with older version of libmnl (in fact,
> even tho patches have been sent months ago, auto-ints are still
> not supported in libmnl.git).
>
> Second, the dependency makes ynl less self contained, and harder
> to vendor in. Whether vendoring libraries into projects is a good
> idea is a separate discussion, nonetheless, people want to do it.
>
> Third, there are small annoyances with the libmnl APIs which
> are hard to fix in backward-compatible ways.
>
> All in all, libmnl is a great library, but with all the code
> generation and structured parsing, ynl is better served by going
> its own way.

Is the absence of buffer bounds checking intentional, i.e. relying on libasan?