netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] net_sched: mirred: remove action when the target device is gone

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:51:38 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] net_sched: mirred: remove action when the
 target device is gone

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>
> Huh? This has nothing to do with whether you are capable to remove a
> node from a list. It is about you making a decision that the node should
> be removed. You dont have sufficient information to make such a decision.

Then which lacks?

>> Why removing a filter when the netdev is removed is not policy?
>> Actually it is, ONLY that it is not be able to shared with current
>> implementation.
>>
>
> Of course it is. Since you understand that why do you think removing
> an action which is part of that policy is a good idea?
>

Well, I think doing such policy decision for both filters and actions in
kernel IS fine, simply because it is harder for user-space. We already
have many of such policies, they fit well.


>
>> Since you love mechanism _so much_, why not make filters shared
>> by other qdisc's and stop removing them when netdev is gone in kernel?
>>
>> Be realistic, Jamal, user-space is hard, you can't simply let user-space
>> decide everything, especially when you don't provide a simple way to do
>> it.
>> Netlink is already hard to use, even with libnl, since it enforces a cache
>> layer. Sit down and spend some time to write some libnl code, compare it
>> with this patch.
>>
>
> You gotta be joking. I live through this every ither day.

Great! Then show me how to do remove a mirred action upon
the target device is gone in user-space, please?

> Frankly, I think i will have no progress if i tried to convince you the
> world is round. I am dropping from this discussion.
>

Your replies show you care about policy vs mechanism very much,
but you even don't do any thing with either 1) try to show me how
the user-space implements it or 2) go head to make same mechanism
for filters (and qdisc) as well.

Do something to prove that you said. :) Otherwise, I think you are kidding
me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html