lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net 1/1 v4] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:36:21 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:20:01PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > Can't we write these 3 above branches more compact? Something like this:
> >
> > if (!!tb[IFLA_NET_NS_FD] + !!tb[IFLA_IF_NETNSID] + !!tb[IFLA_NET_NS_PID] <= 1)
> > return 0;
>
> I always prefer for conditions to be separate and readable even if it
> means additional code. But if others feel that there's value in avoiding
> two additional conditions I'm happy to adapt the patch.

FWIW, I don't like the n x n conditions much. But Kirill's proposal
seems not to be much better. I was thinking about:

int cnt = 0;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NS_FD])
cnt++;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NS_PID])
cnt++;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NETNSID])
cnt++;
if (cnt > 1) {
...errorr...
}

but that's not better, either. As we're unlikely to add a fourth value,
I guess I'm okay with the current approach in the patch.

> Before I added support for netns ids for additional requests Jiri made
> it so that all request that specified properties that they did not
> support returned ENOTSUPP instead of EINVAL. This just keeps things
> consistent. Users would now suddenly receive EINVAL. That's potentially
> confusing.

Yes, please, keep -EOPNOTSUPP.

> As for the case of passing multiple netns identifying properties into
> the same request EINVAL seems the perfect candidate and the error
> message seems instructive to userspace programs.

Agreed.

Acked-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>

Thanks,

Jiri

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-07 14:54    [W:0.041 / U:3.300 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site