On Mon, 2006-19-06 at 11:13 -0400, James Morris wrote: > > It seems that TIPC is multiplexing all of it's commands through > TIPC_GENL_CMD.
TIPC is a deviation; they had the 100 ioctls and therefore did a direct one-to-one mapping. > I wonder, if this is how other protocols are likely to utilize genl, then > we could possibly drop the command registration code completely and one > command op can be registered by the protocol during > genl_register_family(). > The intent is to have a handful of commands as in classical netlink (eg route or qdisc etc) where you are controlling data that sits in the kernel; i.e when you have an attribute or a vector of attributes, then the commands will be of the semantics: ADD/DEL/GET/DUMP only. Other that TIPC the two other users i have seen use it in this manner. But, you are right if usage tends to lean in some other way we could get rid of it (I think TIPC is a bad example). > This would both simplify the genl code and API, and help ensure > consistency of users. > You are talking from an SELinux perspective i take it? My view: If you want to have ACLs against such commands then it becomes easier to say "can only do ADD but not DEL" for example (We need to resolve genl_rcv_msg() check on commands to be in sync with SELinux as was pointed by Thomas) cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
