netdev - Re: To netlink or not to netlink, that is the question

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: <CAHmME9rWDzO9j8E1HYSXY6j9FJqHODOYnEW8+SSggapDkQ_jBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:28:20 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: To netlink or not to netlink, that is the question

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> It is up to you but I doubt that code with new private ioctl's will be
> accepted upstream. If you want full review then post for inclusion upstream.
> If you just want to maintain it is a private fork, go ahead and do what
> you want and suffer the consequences.

Obviously I'm going for upstream conclusion and not willing to "suffer
the consequences", hence my email in the first place. Given that you
seem most interested in netlink, might you have any constructive
suggestions on how netlink might be used with very large atomic
messages?