netdev - RE: [PATCH] bridge: Enable configuration of ageing interval for bridges and switch devices.

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: <77EF4405DD4BB54AACCE7DB593DF6A9A9E3114@SJEXCHMB14.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:40:01 +0000
From:	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>
To:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC:	"Wilson, Daniel G" <daniel.wilson@...el.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] bridge: Enable configuration of ageing interval for
 bridges and switch devices.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Kubecek [mailto:mkubecek@...e.cz]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:00 PM
> To: Premkumar Jonnala
> Cc: Wilson, Daniel G; Scott Feldman; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: Enable configuration of ageing interval for bridges
> and switch devices.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:08:51AM +0000, Premkumar Jonnala wrote:
> > > From: Wilson, Daniel G [mailto:daniel.wilson@...el.com]
> > > >
> > > > Can you extend bridge command to allow setting/getting these bridge
> attrs?
> > > > Looks like you construct a RTM_NEWLINK IFLA_INFO_DATA msg.  No
> changes
> > > > needed to the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > bridge link set dev br0 ageing_time 1000
> > > >
> > > >  --or--
> > > >
> > > > ip link set dev br0 type bridge ageing_time 1000
> > >
> > > Being able to set these attributes via both bridge and ip would be great.
> > >
> > IMHO, we should choose only one command.  Otherwise, we'd have to
> > spend effort in trying to keep both the commands in sync.
> 
> As long as they are using the same netlink interface, I don't think it's
> a serious problem. After all, there will be also other tools (wicked,
> perhaps systemd-networkd) setting it directly via netlink rather than
> calling either ip or bridge.
> 
> > My vote would be for the bridge command - since the options/parameters
> > are related to bridges.  If there is no objection, I'll move all the
> > bridge options from 'ip link' command to 'bridge' command.
> 
> This would break existing scripts using ip to set the parameter. Is the
> possibility to use any of the two really that bad?

There was another email on this thread where Scott indicated existence of other commands
where both ip and bridge are available, and they are for the same function.

I will keep both the ip and bridge commands, and try to share the underlying code as much as possible.

-Prem

> 
>                                                          Michal Kubecek

--
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