netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] bonding: add netlink attributes to slave link dev

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: <C5AA1F6D-4FC7-42F6-A59F-A0114E1B2E8B@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:42:58 -0800
From:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] bonding: add netlink attributes to slave link dev


On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:

> Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:36:58PM CET, sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:34 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> 
>>>> +	if (rtnl_bond_slave_fill(skb, dev))
>>>> +		goto nla_put_failure;
>>>> +
>>> 
>>> I must say I do not like this at all. This should be done in a generic
>>> way. By a callback registered by bonding and possibly other master-slave
>>> device types.
>> 
>> The bond was registered with the ndo_get_slave op.  ndo_get_slave could be used for other master-slave device types.  I’ll agree that rtnl_bond_slave_fill() could have been written more generically.  Is that the objection?
> 
> I think is should be done rather in rtnl_link_ops. It's the natural point
> for this ops. I have patchset prepared. Will send it very soon.

Ok, cool.

Also, right now I have IFLA_SLAVE as a nest for IFLA_SLAVE_xxx attrs.  Do you think we should have a two-layer nest so we can capture other master-slave devices rather than just bond slaves?  I.e.:

	IFLA_SLAVE
		IFLA_BOND_SLAVE
			IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_xxx
			IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_yyy
			IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_zzz
		IFLA_FOO_SLAVE			// FOO is some other non-bond master
			IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_xxx
			IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_yyy
			IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_zzz

(Of course, slave wouldn’t be bond and foo slave at same time).

-scott--
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