netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mpls: packet stats

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:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:57:47 +0000
From:	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mpls: packet stats

On 16/02/16 20:26, roopa wrote:
> On 2/16/16, 7:41 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> Statistics not provided via netlink are useless in real installations.
>>
>> In fact I would say to forego the proc interface entirely, it's a second
>> class citizen for statistics gathering and has a non-triviel per-device
>> cost for instantiation.
>>
> +1
>
> I agree with the cost too.
>
> Robert, I was thinking of responding to your series to add netlink stats for AF_MPLS in
>   rtnl_af_ops (similar to  IFLA_INET6_STATS). But, soon realized that it is currently used by ipv6 alone
> and it also ended up with a skip filter (RTEXT_FILTER_SKIP_STATS). So, extending that interface for
> mpls is not the right thing to do either.

ipv4 doesn't have per-interface stats, so the fact that it doesn't use 
fill_link_af to export stats doesn't really add much to the argument.

The real issue with the IFLA_INET6_STATS mechanism is that they are 
included in netlink broadcasts, not just netlink unicasts and there is 
no way of filtering for broadcasts at the moment.

> There is work being done for a separate netlink infrastructure for stats.
> I would wait for that infrastructure to be ready to add mpls stats. It should be available soon.

Great, any details on what it would look like? Can I assist in any way 
in the development?

In the mean time, I'll rebase and resubmit the ip ttl propagation patch 
separately.

Thanks,
Rob