[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1647bxs1c.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 07:40:31 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Virtual ethernet device (tunnel)
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> writes:
> jamal wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 14:34 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thats a lot better than using sysfs, but I think it would be
>>>preferrable to use rtnetlink instead of genetlink for network
>>>configuration.
>>
>>
>> or you can just hold rtnl while using genl.
>> I do agree it would be easier to just use rtnetlink ...
>
>
> The rtnl needs to be held in either case, but using a different
> netlink family introduces races in message processing. For example
> a simple:
>
> ip link add dev veth0
> ip route add 10.0.0.0/8 dev veth0
>
> might fail because we have two different input queues and the routing
> message might get processed before the link message.
The consensus from the last thread was pretty much that we need
to implement RTM_NEWLINK and RTM_DELLINK, if it is at all possible.
So that we can get code reuse between different virtual devices.
Although I suspect we will need some per type attribute parsing.
Eric
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists