netdev - Re: [patch net-next-2.6 1/4] net: extend netlink interface to handle generic slave management

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]

Date:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:40:43 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 1/4] net: extend netlink interface to handle
 generic slave management

Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 04:48:19PM CET, kaber@...sh.net wrote:
>On 11.02.2011 16:21, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Drivers like bridge and bonding uses their own way to manipulate with
>> underlink devices. This is an attempt to introduce common interface using
>> netlink.
>
>Thanks for working on this, this has been on my TODO list for a
>long time.
>
>> --- a/include/linux/if_link.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/if_link.h
>> @@ -136,6 +136,9 @@ enum {
>>  	IFLA_PORT_SELF,
>>  	IFLA_AF_SPEC,
>>  	IFLA_GROUP,		/* Group the device belongs to */
>> +	IFLA_SLAVE_LIST,
>> +	IFLA_SLAVE_ADD,
>> +	IFLA_SLAVE_DEL,
>
>I don't like this very much though, the attributes usually contain
>data, not commands. We already have NEWLINK, DELLINK etc. on the
>top level, the combinations of NEWLINK/NLM_F_CREAT and SLAVE_DEL
>or DELLINK and SLAVE_ADD and so on simply don't make sense.
>
>We usually also try to keep the interface symetrical in both
>directions (a NEWLINK message from the kernel is identical to a
>NEWLINK message from userspace, a DELLINK message as well besides
>containing additional information), so using different attributes
>for dumping slaves than for adding them seems wrong. If we can
>dump all slaves in one message, it should also be possible to
>enslave multiple devices using the same message.
>
>What I originally had planned to support enslaving devices is to
>make use of the IFLA_MASTER attribute. The IFLA_MASTER attribute
>would contain the bond or bridge ifindex and the IFLA_IFNAME
>attribute or ifindex would specify the slave device. All operations
>would be performed on the slave device as usual, if the IFLA_MASTER
>attribute is present we'd additionally call a master specific
>callback for enslaving or releasing slave devices. Besides allowing
>to keep messages symetrical, an additional benefit is that it would
>be possible to create and enslave a device in a single step.
>

Yes, that makes sense. I'm going to respin the patchset soon.

Jirka
>
--
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