Let's remove a function of questionnable utility.
strv_clear() frees the items of a string array, but not the array
itself. i.e. it half-drestructs a string array and makes it empty. This
is not too useful an operation since we almost never need to just do
that, we also want to free the whole thing. In fact, strv_clear() is
only used in one of our .c file, and there it appears like unnecessary
optimization, given that for each array with n elements it leaves the
number of free()s we need to at O(n) which is not really an optimization
at all (it goes from n+1 to n, that's all).
Prompted by the discussions on #14605
We don't need a seperate output parameter that is of type int. glibc() says
that the type is "unsigned", but the kernel thinks it's "int". And the
"alternative names" interface also uses ints. So let's standarize on ints,
since it's clearly not realisitic to have interface numbers in the upper half
of unsigned int range.
This only matters for the case where new networkctl is running against older
networkd. We should still handle the old error to avoid unnecessary warning
about speedmeeter being disabled.
This partially reverts commit e813de549b.
The combination of sd_netlink_message_enter_container() and
sd_netlink_message_read_string() only reads the last element if the attribute is
duplicated, such a situation easily happens for IFLA_ALT_IFNAME.
The function introduced here reads all matched attributes.
Properties marked this way really shouldn't be sent around willy-nilly,
that's what the flag is about, hence exclude it from InterfacesAdded
signals (and in fact anything that is a signal).
This allows marking messages that contain "sensitive" data with a flag.
If it's set then the messages are erased from memory when the message is
freed.
Similar, a flag may be set on vtable entries: incoming/outgoing message
matching the entry will then automatically be flagged this way.
This is supposed to be an easy method to mark messages containing
potentially sensitive data (such as passwords) for proper destruction.
(Note that this of course is only is as safe as the broker in between is
doing something similar. But let's at least not be the ones at fault
here.)
