From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60050CA101F for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 93595768; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.source.kernel.org (sea.source.kernel.org [2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id e0a330c9 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:27:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F92A401F1; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7CCDC4CEF1; Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:27:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1757723263; bh=HrdxcHyCtTTpJcAiGydPfegXvya3mJ/jU4zuZbNMC1c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jl8r/DQaPWLqwN59Ues0LAqaFmw1BsYEWwk6QoB/JaWfdLS0H1jTp347z+nrvefOK 6A8BuEy/INlx4poANaVVGdXnEcvBvERS/HS0V94TY/ozx+6snBsFFhV3tAp7X1WQp5 oS8B5X8c26FdRzOzpS7T9I2GxsHmZ7iN+/AjzjYVrYstLLy2eYQlCnU6etIqMzcGNg 3N8Ie/7RZQ2XgF3eJsvemrnL6Lwd9LTi/CcB7qPOLMLHadZNPViaGUit0tdSbYyO49 5BD+9o2M2D4sKptHi7c7NCZqYoeJOoR2jQlt9IiOJqKpc8ewoVabq4oFnzL3qw/HRD t0Gov+OCRR/+A== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 17:27:42 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: =?UTF-8?B?QXNiasO4cm4=?= Sloth =?UTF-8?B?VMO4bm5lc2Vu?= Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Donald Hunter , Simon Horman , Jacob Keller , Sabrina Dubroca , wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 08/13] tools: ynl-gen: only validate nested array payload Message-ID: <20250912172742.3a41b81e@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20250911200508.79341-9-ast@fiberby.net> References: <20250911200508.79341-1-ast@fiberby.net> <20250911200508.79341-9-ast@fiberby.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 20:05:01 +0000 Asbj=C3=B8rn Sloth T=C3=B8nnesen wrote: > +int ynl_attr_validate_payload(struct ynl_parse_arg *yarg, > + const struct nlattr *attr, unsigned int type) > +{ > + return __ynl_attr_validate(yarg, attr, type); > +} Why not expose __ynl_attr_validate() to the callers? I don't think the _payload() suffix is crystal clear, we're still validating attr, _payload() makes it sound like we're validating what's inside attr?