netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Add etun driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <461D09AD.9060603@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:15:41 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dim@...nvz.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, greearb@...delatech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add etun driver

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 02:06 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Same way as the current RTM_SETLINK message works, but with creating
>>a new link in advance. It works fine in other subsystems, so I don't
>>see why it would in this case as well. Some subsystems do it in an
>>atomic fashion (network schedulers for example), some first create
>>the object, then configure it (network classifiers in the non-compat
>>cases). In the network device case I suppose the later should work
>>fine since a device needs to be set UP in a second action before
>>it really does anything.
> 
> 
> Looking at br_netlink.c it seems that this sort of contradicts why
> generic netlink was done, now all the sudden everything that wants to
> create new links need its own netlink protocol number, no?


No, generic netlink avoids allocating netlink families. br_netlink
uses the same netlink family as the other network configuration stuff
(NETLINK_ROUTE), but a different rtgen_family (which matches the
address families). But you have a valid point, if we want to use
this for things like bonding or VLAN that aren't actually address
families, we should consider introducing "rtnetlink families" to
avoid adding AF_BONDING, AF_8021Q etc.

-
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