netdev - Adding IPv6 support to IPVS: some general questions about kernel development

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f4845fc0803310753o56ccbae5uda1e216fa139857@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:53:08 +0200
From:	"Julius Volz" <juliusv@...gle.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Adding IPv6 support to IPVS: some general questions about kernel development

Hi,

I was redirected here from lvs-devel for a particular question. As
part of an internship at Google, I am currently looking at porting the
IPVS (IP virtual server) kernel part of LVS to support IPv6. First
off, I am neither a real specialist in any of the involved areas yet
(IPv6, load balancing) nor do I have much experience writing kernel
code (mainly reading it for some time now), but I will try to learn as
much as I can each day. Do expect lots of newbie questions though ;)

One question I had on lvs-devel that people here might know more
about: IPVS is currently sitting at "net/ipv4/ipvs/..." in the kernel.
A lot of this code would probably be the same for an IPv6 version, so
the code would have to be refactored somehow and partially moved to a
location where it can be used by both the IPv4 and IPv6 code. Are
there any special rules for this and what do I have to think of? For
example, could I just move the common code to a directory "net/ipvs"
(or even all of the code, for both IPv4 and IPv6) or would people
object?

I'm also not sure yet on how to best begin coding in such a manner
that the whole thing will be manageable with small, separate patches
that each have a chance of being accepted (would that mean that each
small patch would have to be useful on its own in a way? That seems
difficult). This is just because I also don't have a lot of experience
patching other people's projects in this manner.

If any of you could offer some advice on these issues, I would greatly
appreciate it!

Kind Regards,
Julius Volz

-- 
Google Switzerland GmbH
--
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