netdev - Re: [PATCH] veth: replace iflink by a dedicated symlink in sysfs

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: <20150820.140734.195153496258370626.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc:	jbenc@...hat.com, vincent@...nat.im, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] veth: replace iflink by a dedicated symlink in sysfs

From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:31:11 +0200

> Le 20/08/2015 13:53, Jiri Benc a écrit :
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:33:14 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>> Probably better to introduce veth netlink attribute then, something
>>> like
>>> IFLA_VETH_PEER and keeps IFLA_LINK_NETNSID.
>>
>> I'd prefer IFLA_PEER. More generic attribute will be helpful should we
>> introduce an interface similar to veth in the future.s
> Ok.
> 
>>
>> Also, I'd not combine IFLA_LINK_NETNSID with IFLA_PEER. There might
>> very well be an interface in the future that will need both IFLA_LINK
>> and
>> IFLA_PEER and this would just create a confusion. It may be unlikely
>> but the attributes are cheap and it doesn't make sense to design uAPI
>> in a way that might bring problems in the future.
> Ok, but then this IFLA_PEER can include the ifindex and the nsid. No
> need
> to have two new attributes.
> 
>>
>>> I also don't know what is the best way to handle this. veth advertises
>>> its peer via IFLA_LINK since 4.1, so it's too late to change it for
>>> this
>>> release.
>>
>> Apparently we need to pick our poison. Either way, we break something.
> Sure. I would prefer to have the same mechanism in all version, but I
> can
> live with the other solution.
> 
> David, any thoughts about this?

You can't break the 4.1 semantics, it's in a released kernel and people
_ARE_ using it.
--
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