netdev - Re: [RFC][IPv6] Export userland ND options through netlink (RDNSS support)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20071001.204240.07591824.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:42:40 +0900 (JST)
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	linkfanel@...oo.fr
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][IPv6] Export userland ND options through netlink (RDNSS
 support)

Hello.

In article <20070929174720.GA21678@....ecp.fr> (at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:47:20 +0200), Pierre Ynard <linkfanel@...oo.fr> says:

> As discussed before, this patch provides userland with a way to access
> relevant options in Router Advertisements, after they are processed and
> validated by the kernel. Extra options are processed in a generic way;
> this patch only exports RDNSS options described in RFC5006, but support
> to control which options are exported could be easily added.

I basically like this approach at first sight.

> which implies that a userland daemon processing RDNSS options needs a
> way to associate the option to the router that sent it, and fetch its
> lifetime. This kind of information could be included in a header in the
> rtnetlink message (in this version of the patch there is none).

> diff --git a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h
> index dff3192..f69d415 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ enum {
>  	RTM_SETNEIGHTBL,
>  #define RTM_SETNEIGHTBL	RTM_SETNEIGHTBL
>  
> +	RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT = 68,
> +#define RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT
> +
>  	__RTM_MAX,

Does this imply that we could extend (or reuse) this for all of
NS/NA/RS/RA/Redirect messages?  I think you need to include the
code, type and basic semantics of the message.

If this is only for RA, we should say "RTM_NEWRAUSEROPT" or something.

Regards,

--yoshfuji
-
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