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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQKyOA7QADk9KOz_-ZFO+WJs2bbRsXZyXXr0sWag4jpOBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:13:56 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	wkok@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: introduce IFF_PROTO_DOWN flag.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:11 AM,  <anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> From: Anuradha Karuppiah <anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com>
>
> Applications can detect errors in the network that would require
> disabling the device independent of the admin state. In the presence of
> these errors traffic could be black holed or looped resulting in a
> network meltdown. Clearing the IFF_UP flag for error disabling the
> device can be problematic because -
>
> 1. The administrator cannot distinguish between a user space daemon’s
> error-disable and a regular device disable.
> 2. Applications can monitor the error state and enable the device once
> the error is removed. If IFF_UP is used for this purpose the application
> may end up enabling a device that the administrator has intentionally
> disabled for other reasons. This could result in network changes not
> expected by the admin.
>

Both reasons look like workaround for user space issues.
Just keep this fake-down state in userspace.
What's the point pushing it to kernel?
looking at 3rd patch:
+ * @IF_LINK_PROTO_DOWN_MLAG: proto_down by a multi-chassis LAG application.
+ * @IF_LINK_PROTO_DOWN_STP: proto_down by an STP application.

so there will be new flag for every application that cannot deal with
normal down?
--
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