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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:22:15 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>
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

Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:42:58PM CET, sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>
>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).

I would rather do this in LINKINFO nest the same way IFLA_BOND_* are
done. Please see following patch:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/313156/

>
>-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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists