netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipip: advertise tunnel param via rtnl

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, 09 Nov 2012 18:00:59 +0100
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipip: advertise tunnel param via rtnl

Le 09/11/2012 17:37, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 17:09 +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> It is usefull for daemons that monitor link event to have the full parameters of
>> these interfaces when a rtnl message is sent.
>> It allows also to dump them via rtnetlink.
>>
>> It is based on what is done for GRE tunnels.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>> ---
>
> Nice !
>
> Note this also adds support for link creation.
>
> Do you plan to add iproute2 support for :
>
> ip link add ipip1 type ipip remote 10.246.8.36
>
> Thanks
>
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>

If the principle is approved, yes. If we add it, we will have two
ways to manage these tunnels, via netlink and via ioctl, is it ok?

A side effect could be to have an option or an argument to the module to not 
create the control interface (tunl0, sit0, ...).
--
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