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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 23:43:31 -0600 From: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org> To: Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, fengguang.wu@...el.com, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1 v2] net: rmnet_data: Initial implementation > Yeah, seems quite a bit like VLAN (from a workflow perspective, not > quite as much from a protocol one) and I think the same workflow could > work for this too. Would be nice to eventually get qmi_wwan onto the > same base, if possible (though we'd need to preserve the 802.3 > capability somehow for devices that don't support raw-ip). > > It doesn't necessarily mean that configuration would need to move to > the IP tool. I just used it as an example of how VLAN works and how > rmnet could work as well, quite easily with the ip tool. > > Since the ip tool is based on netlink, both it and your userspace > library could use the same netlink attributes and families to do the > same thing. > > Essentially, I am recommending that instead of your current custom > netlink commands, port them over to rtnetlink which will mean less code > for you, and a more standard kernel interface for everyone. > Thanks for your comments. I'll work on conversion into rtnl_link_ops. Ethernet frames are supported in pass through mode (though not used often) but they cannot be used in conjunction with MAP functionality. > Does the aggregation happen at the level of the raw device, or at the > level of the MUX channels? eg, can I aggregate packets from multiple > MUX channels into the same request, especially on USB devices? > Hardware does allow aggregation of packets from different mux channels in a single frame. > One use-case is to put different packet data contexts into different > namespaces. You could then isolate different EPS/PDP contexts by > putting them into different network namespaces, and for example have > your IMS handler only be able to access its own EPS/PDP context. > > We could already do this with qmi_wwan on devices that provide multiple > USB endpoints for QMI/rmnet, but I thought the point of the MUX > protocol was to allow a single endpoint for rmnet that can MUX multiple > packet data contexts. So it would be nice to allow each rmnet netdev > to be placed into a different network namespace. > I need to study more about namespaces since I am not familiar with it. I'll add support for it in a follow up patchset. > Like a usb gadget rmnet interface for debugging? > Yes, its mostly used for test only. -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists