netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8320] New: replacing route in kernel doesn't send netlink message

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]

Message-Id: <20070416.171016.43503207.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kaber@...sh.net
Cc:	milon@...cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8320] New: replacing route in kernel doesn't
 send netlink message

From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200

> RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct
> that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon receiving
> the DELROUTE message since the update is non-atomic. So I really don't
> know, I'm in favour of having notifications for replacements, but I
> fear we might break something.

We can cry foul about a broken application if an application following
the API correctly would interpret the new messages correctly.

I think it doesn't make sense to do a delete then a newroute for
the atomicity issues, and therefore the replace makes the most
sense as long as existing correct uses of the API would not
explode on this.
-
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