netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: introduce IFF_PROTO

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]

Message-Id: <20150320.162819.1225364903839854931.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, wkok@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: introduce IFF_PROTO_DOWN flag.

From: anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:11:55 -0700

> Applications can detect errors in the network that would require
> disabling the device independent of the admin state.

I hate changes like this.

The only reason it exists, is because you don't want to put together
the infrastructure and framework necessary for applications managing
this state in userspace to _work_ _together_.  So you make it a kernel
problem.

UP/DOWN is a boolean state, that's not changing.

So you need to design your stuff such that one entity takes all of the
collective decisions together and calculates the final up/down state,
and then asks the kernel to do that.

Nothing is more bullshit than having someone ask the kernel to up the
interface and the thing doesn't come up because of this auxiliary
crap.  That's broken and nobody is going to expect nor be happy with
that behavior.
--
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