netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: l3mdev: Add master device lookup by index

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56535AC4.7040105@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:28:20 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: l3mdev: Add master device lookup by
 index

On 11/22/15 9:35 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:02:04 -0700
>
>> I am confused by that response given that sk_bound_dev_if is one of
>> the key principals for the VRF implementation. Applications wanting to
>> communicate over interfaces in a VRF have to set sk_bound_dev_if.
>
> Yes, they have to set it explicitly.
>
> You are setting it for them in response to the connection
> creation, and that's what I object to.
>

The intent is to not require having N-listen sockets/threads/tasks to 
support N-vrfs for scalability reasons. Having a special DEVICE_ANY 
index adds complexity to socket lookups, so I dropped that idea long 
ago. Would guarding this behavior by a sysctl be acceptable?
--
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