netdev - Re: [PATCHv7 2/5] rtnetlink: send a single notification on device state changes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071203133739.GA3909@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:37:39 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	panther@...abit.hu
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 2/5] rtnetlink: send a single notification on device state changes

On 03-12-2007 12:40, Laszlo Attila Toth wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski írta:
>> Laszlo Attila Toth wrote, On 11/29/2007 05:11 PM:
>>
>>> In do_setlink() a single ntification is sent at the end of the function
>>> if any modification occured. If the address has been changed, another
>>> notification is sent.
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> @@ -858,6 +859,7 @@ static int do_setlink(struct net_device *dev, 
>>> struct ifinfomsg *ifm,
>>>      if (tb[IFLA_BROADCAST]) {
>>>          nla_memcpy(dev->broadcast, tb[IFLA_BROADCAST], dev->addr_len);
>>>          send_addr_notify = 1;
>>> +        modified = 1;
>>>      }
>>
>> ..
>>
>>>      if (send_addr_notify)
>>>          call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, dev);
>>> +
>>> +    if (modified)
>>> +        netdev_state_change(dev);
>>> +
>>
>> The subject suggests there might be less notifications. The patch 
>> actually
>> adds a little. Any additional comment why they are necessary?
> 
> The actual state of a device contains its address(es), also address 
> change implies state change, but these are different netlink messages 
> also the NETDEV_CHANGEADDR cannot be dropped because the other one is used.

OK. But, since until this patch it seemed to be enough, it would be
nice to know from the changelog why exactly it's nececessary to add
this now, because it doesn't look like it was omitted here by mistake.
(Or to say that it was omitted by mistake.)

Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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