Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:55 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > One idea.  We use the macro thing to generate a "netlink.pot" file > and then some userland tree can contain the latest netlink.pot and > the translations. Right. For the record - since we just talked about it - I was thinking of putting

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:46:46 +0200 > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:43 -0700, David Miller wrote: >> I suspect that someone will eventually give us a hard time about the >> strings wrt. internationalization. :-) It's solvable at least >> partially in

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:45 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > We only need to store the pointer to the attribute in the error > container structure. We can calculate the offset from nl_err() by > pasing the skbuff as parameter there, right? Ah, that's a good point, we could store the nlattr

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:43 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > I have no strong opinions about string length. > > In my opinion, I would like to believe that if someone tried to get a > networking patch applied that emitted a rediculously long string then > we would give them feedback about how that

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:29:17PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:21 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > I think the most flexible way is to pass the container error > > structure to nla_parse() so it sets this for you. This would also > > save tons of "malformed attribute"

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:35:50 +0200 > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:53PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > [...] >> Let's just discuss the UAPI, since people complain we don't talk >> about that enough :-) For those playing at home it is three new >>

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:53PM -0700, David Miller wrote: [...] > Let's just discuss the UAPI, since people complain we don't talk > about that enough :-) For those playing at home it is three new > attributes returned in a netlink ACK when the application asks > for the extended response: >

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:27:14 +0200 > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:22:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Johannes Berg >> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:09:45 +0200 >> >> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:21:34 +0200 > For my usecases in netfilter, the attributes and an specific error > code should be enough to figure out what is wrong. Will not need > strings. > > BTW, we may not have an offset, eg. EINVAL because of missing

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:27 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > Also another way to look at this is that we're providing a lot of > > new power and expressability.  So even if only one aspect of the > > new error reporting is used it's a positive step forward. True. > > So allow offset "0"

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:21 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > For my usecases in netfilter, the attributes and an specific error > code should be enough to figure out what is wrong. Will not need > strings. Fair enough. > BTW, we may not have an offset, eg. EINVAL because of missing >

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:22:23PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Johannes Berg > Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:09:45 +0200 > > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> [...]

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:20 -0700, David Miller wrote: > But what it lacks fundamentally is context.  Therefore it can't be > used to provide the offset or the bad attribute number.  So it can't > meet our requirements. Yes, it doesn't address the requirements here, and in a sense I suspect this

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:09:45 +0200 > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> [...] >> > Heh. I think I really want to solve - at least partially - >> >

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 20:59:12 +0200 > Alexander Shishkin's patch > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7162421/ > > was nice in a way because you could get away without passing the error > structure down all the time, but like I said it doesn't

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:09:45PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > [...] > > > Heh. I think I really want to solve - at least partially - > > > nla_parse() > > > to see

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:06 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > [...] > > Heh. I think I really want to solve - at least partially - > > nla_parse() > > to see that it can be done this way. It'd be nice to even transform > > all > >

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:02 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > I'm tempted to apply this as-is just to show that person that > > things do in fact happen eventually :-) > > We can just send follow up patches to refine, I think it's a good > start, Johannes? I guess we can. Like I just

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: [...] > Heh. I think I really want to solve - at least partially - nla_parse() > to see that it can be done this way. It'd be nice to even transform all > the callers (I generated half of these patches with spatch anyway) to > have at

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:53:15AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Johannes Berg > Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:26:17 +0200 > > > So this is my first draft of what we'd talked about at netconf. > > I'm not super happy with the way we have to pass the extended > > error

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 11:53 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > Alexander Shishkin had a nice way of reporting static extended > > error data, but that isn't really suitable for reporting the > > offset or even reporting the broken attribute from nla_parse(). > >  > > Speaking of nla_parse(), that'll

Re: [RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

From: Johannes Berg Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:26:17 +0200 > So this is my first draft of what we'd talked about at netconf. > I'm not super happy with the way we have to pass the extended > error struct, but I don't see a way to implement reporting any > dynamic

[RFC 0/3] netlink: extended error reporting

So this is my first draft of what we'd talked about at netconf. I'm not super happy with the way we have to pass the extended error struct, but I don't see a way to implement reporting any dynamic information (like error offsets) in any other way. Alexander Shishkin had a nice way of reporting