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: <20170112.141127.426662758858102403.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Jason@...c4.com
Cc:     dcbw@...hat.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: To netlink or not to netlink, that is the question

From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:02:14 +0100

> But what about fetching the list of all existing peers and ipmasks
> atomically? It seems like with multiple calls, if I'm using some kind
> of pagination, things could change in the process. That's why using
> one big buffer was most appealing... Any ideas about this?

This is a fact of life, dumps are always chopped into suitable
numbers of responses as necessary.  We do this for IPV4 routes,
network interfaces, etc. and it all works out just fine.

The thing you should be asking yourself is, if something as heavily
used and fundamental as IPV4 can handle this, probably your scenerio
can be handled just fine as well.