| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070530214508.GT521@postel.suug.ch> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:45:08 +0200 From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> Cc: Samuel Ortiz <samuel@...tiz.org>, giometti@...eenne.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Generic netlink interface help * Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> 2007-05-27 15:24 > On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 00:18 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > This area is still work in progress but the basic idea is that > > like in kernel context, the application defines its set of > > commands and assigns message parsers for each command. > > Ok, but why? For when we get asynchronous events from the kernel? I don't want to enforce a separate socket for every generic netlink family. > > For now, > > the message parser is linked into the cache operations which > > means that you have to "update" a cache in order to use this > > feature. > > What's the cache good for to start with? > > My current userland tool just send a message and expects back a > response. Obviously that's broken once we have events too, is that when > the message parsers come in? See the documentation, a cache is basically a collection of objects. For events, you'd probably want to have each event added to a cache and then iterate over the cache to handle the events in the right order. - 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