netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] ipv6: allow routes to be configured with expire values

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: <566EF98B.8060704@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:16:59 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] ipv6: allow routes to be configured with
 expire values

Hi,

On 14.12.2015 12:48, Xin Long wrote:
>>
>> This is the wrong way to do this.
>>
>> Currently we only ever dump rta_cacheinfo values to the user.
>>
>> If we use it to set things, we have to completely consider every
>> member of that structure as potentially having meaning either
>> intended by the user or choosen by us in the future.
>>
>> Therefore it is a poor choice to start using for specifying the
>> expires value, and some other mechanism such as a new RTNETLINK
>> attribute, should be used for this.
> 
> we did it like this to avoid adding the new RTNETLINK attribute.
> now I got your meaning, and rta_cacheinfo seems to be designed
> for dumping info, not for seting info. i guess you hope we do it like:
> 
> +       if (tb[RTA_EXPIRES]) {
> +               unsigned long timeout =
> addrconf_timeout_fixup(nla_get_u32(tb[RTA_EXPIRES]), HZ);
> +
> +               if (addrconf_finite_timeout(timeout)) {
> +                       cfg->fc_expires = jiffies_to_clock_t(timeout * HZ);
> +                       cfg->fc_flags |= RTF_EXPIRES;
> +               }
> +       }
> 
> hi Hannes, we seem to go back here again, what do you think ?

Albeit I had the same idea and wanted to introduce a new netlink
attribute, I decided to recommend this patch. It aligns with the code we
already have for adding and listing ipv4 and ipv6 addresses
(ifa_cacheinfo) and reporting routing changes for ipv4 and ipv6
(rta_cacheinfo).

We can easily switch to new attributes. Should we introduce a new
interface for this?

Thanks,
Hannes

--
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