netdev - Re: Proposed interface for per-packet mesh-ttl

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: <8e8340660708161221t1c0bee01g9d0cb1835f7026f0@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:21:14 -0700
From:	"Luis Carlos Cobo" <luisca@...ybit.com>
To:	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Javier Cardona" <javier@...ybit.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dcbw@...hat.com>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Proposed interface for per-packet mesh-ttl

On 7/30/07, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> it would need an IP ttl to mesh mapping. The fundamental thing is to try
> and avoid topology specific options bleeding all the way up the socket layer,
> especially since the network layer is involved and may need to multipath.

I think the cleanest way would be to add a ll_ttl (ll for link layer)
field to struct sock and a SO_LL_TTL socket option that sets both the
field and a flag in sk->flags. This way it is useful for any driver
that can do mesh or any other protocol that involves a ttl at link
layer (not that I'm aware of any).

However I guess you are not supposed to add new socket options nor
modify struct socket too often so I'd appreciate feedback on whether
this would be considered a good approach.

-- 
Luis Carlos Cobo Rus       GnuPG ID: 44019B60
cozybit Inc.
-
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