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  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]
Date:	Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:42:58 -0800
From:	Scott Feldman <>
To:	Jiri Pirko <>
Cc:	Veaceslav Falico <>,
	Jay Vosburgh <>,
	Andy Gospodarek <>,
	Netdev <>,
	Roopa Prabhu <>,
	Shrijeet Mukherjee <>,
	Ding Tianhong <>
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 <> wrote:

> Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:36:58PM CET, wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:34 AM, Jiri Pirko <> 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_FOO_SLAVE			// FOO is some other non-bond master

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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists