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]
Date:	Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:32:50 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <>
To:	Alexey Kuznetsov <>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC RTNETLINK 00/09]: Netlink link creation API

Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
>>						 I just suggested to
>>Pavel to create only a single device per newlink operation and binding
>>them later,
> I see some logical inconsistency here.
> Look, the second end is supposed to be in another namespace.
> It will have identity, which cannot be expressed in any way in namespace,
> which is allowed to create the pair: name, ifindex - nothing
> is shared between namespaces.

Good point, I didn't think of that. Is there a version of this patch
that already uses different namespaces so I can look at it?

Are network namespace completely seperated or is there some hierarchy
with all lower namespaces visible above or something like that?

> Moreover, do not forget we have two netlink spaces as well.
> Events happening in one namespace are reported only inside that namespace.
> Actually, the only self-consistent solution, which I see right now
> (sorry, did not think that much) is to create the whole pair as
> one operation; required parameters (name of partner, identity of namespace)
> can be passed as attributes. I guess IFLA_PARTNER approach suggests
> the same thing, right?

I imagined it more as a bind operation, pretty similar to enslave, so
it would only contain an ifindex, no parameters. But as you say that
doesn't work, so I guess we'd have to nest an entire ifinfomsg + the
attributes for the partner device under it .. not exactly pretty.

> As response to this action two replies are generated: one RTM_NEWLINK
> for one end of device with the whole desciption of partnet
> is broadcasted inside this namespace, another RTM_NETLINK with index/name
> of partner device is broadcasted inside the second namespace
> (and, probably, some attributes, which must be hidden inside namespace,
> f.e. identity of main device is suppressed). 

The identity of the main device has no meaning within a different
namespace, but are there other reasons for hiding it?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists