Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 17:18:59 +0000 Donald Hunter wrote:

quoted

quoted

Hah, required attrs. I have been sitting on patches for the kernel for
over a year - https://github.com/kuba-moo/linux/tree/req-args
Not sure if they actually work but for the kernel I was curious if it's
possible to do the validation in constant time (in relation to the
policy size, i.e. without scanning the entire policy at the end to
confirm that all required attrs are present). And that's what I came up
with.  

Interesting. It's definitely a thorny problem with varying sets of
'required' attributes. It could be useful to report the absolutely
required attributes in policy responses, without any actual enforcement.
Would it be possible to report policy for legacy netlink-raw families?

It's a simple matter of plumbing. We care reuse the genetlink policy
dumping, just need to add a new attr to make "classic" family IDs
distinct from genetlink ones.

The policy vs spec is another interesting question. When I started
thinking about YNL my intuition was to extend policies to carry all
relevant info. But the more I thought about it the less sense it made.

Whether YNL specs should replace policy dumps completely (by building
the YAML into the kernel, and exposing via sysfs like kheaders or btf)
 - I'm not sure. I think I used policy dumps twice in my life. They
are not all that useful, IMVHO...

Yeah, fair point. I don't think I've used policy dumps in any meaningful
way either. Maybe no real value in exporting it for netlink-raw.

quoted

Thinking about it, usability would probably be most improved by adding
extack messages to more of the tc error paths.

TC was one of the first netlink families, so we shouldn't judge it too
harshly. With that preface - it should only be used as "lessons learned"
not to inform modern designs.

Oh, not judging TC, just considering whether it would be useful to throw
some extack patches at it.