2025-03-04, 13:11:28 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
On 04/03/2025 13:00, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2025-03-04, 01:33:50 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
int ovpn_nl_key_new_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)...
{
+ pkr.slot = nla_get_u8(attrs[OVPN_A_KEYCONF_SLOT]);
+ pkr.key.key_id = nla_get_u16(attrs[OVPN_A_KEYCONF_KEY_ID]);
+ pkr.key.cipher_alg = nla_get_u16(attrs[OVPN_A_KEYCONF_CIPHER_ALG]);
[...]
+static int ovpn_nl_send_key(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct genl_info *info,...
+ u32 peer_id, enum ovpn_key_slot slot,
+ const struct ovpn_key_config *keyconf)
+{
+ if (nla_put_u32(skb, OVPN_A_KEYCONF_SLOT, slot) ||
+ nla_put_u32(skb, OVPN_A_KEYCONF_KEY_ID, keyconf->key_id) ||
+ nla_put_u32(skb, OVPN_A_KEYCONF_CIPHER_ALG, keyconf->cipher_alg))
That's a bit inconsistent. nla_put_u32 matches the generated policy,
but the nla_get_u{8,16} don't (and nla_get_u16 also doesn't match "u8
key_id" it's getting stored into).
[also kind of curious that the policy/spec uses U32 with max values of 1/2/7]
From https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/userspace-api/netlink/specs.html#fix-width-integer-types
"Note that types smaller than 32 bit should be avoided as using them does
not save any memory in Netlink messages (due to alignment)."
Hence I went for u32 attributes, although values stored into them are much
smaller.
Right.