Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: dcb: add new apptrust attribute

[<Daniel.Machon@microchip.com>]

> > +     if (ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE]) {
> > +             u8 selectors[IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_MAX + 1] = {0};
> > +             struct nlattr *attr;
> > +             int nselectors = 0;
> > +             u8 selector;
> > +             int rem, i;
> > +
> > +             if (!ops->dcbnl_setapptrust) {
> > +                     err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +                     goto err;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             nla_for_each_nested(attr, ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE],
> > +                                 rem) {
> > +                     if (nla_type(attr) != DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST ||
> > +                         nla_len(attr) != 1 ||
> > +                         nselectors >= sizeof(selectors)) {
> > +                             err = -EINVAL;
> > +                             goto err;
> > +                     }
> > +
> > +                     selector = nla_get_u8(attr);
> > +                     switch (selector) {
> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ETHERTYPE:
> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_STREAM:
> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DGRAM:
> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ANY:
> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DSCP:
> > +                     case DCB_APP_SEL_PCP:
> 
> This assumes that the range of DCB attributes will never overlap with
> the range of IEEE attributes. Wasn't the original reason for introducing
> the DCB nest to not have to make this assumption?
> 
> I.e. now that we split DCB and IEEE attributes in the APP_TABLE
> attribute, shouldn't it be done here as well?

Hmm, doesn't hurt to do strict checking here as well. We can even get rid
of the DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST attr and just pass DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP and
DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP? Then use the same functions to do the checking.

/ Daniel