netdev - Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl

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: <20170504094558.78933e60@xeon-e3>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2017 09:45:58 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On Thu, 4 May 2017 17:37:38 +0300
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:36:36AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 05/04/2017 01:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:  
> > > Add support for extended ack error reporting via libmnl. This
> > > is a better alternative to use existing library and not copy/paste
> > > code from the kernel. Also make arguments const where possible.
> > >
> > > Add a new function rtnl_talk_extack that takes a callback as an input
> > > arg. If a netlink response contains extack attributes, the callback is
> > > is invoked with the the err string, offset in the message and a pointer
> > > to the message returned by the kernel.
> > >
> > > Adding a new function allows commands to be moved over to the
> > > extended error reporting over time.
> > >
> > > For feedback, compile tested only.  
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what is the plan regarding converting iproute2
> > over to libmnl (ip, tc, ss, ...)? In 2015, tipc tool was the first
> > user merged that requires libmnl, the only other user today in the
> > tree is devlink, which even seems to define its own libmnl library
> > helpers. What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to
> > libmnl? I always was the impression we should strive for as little
> > dependencies as possible?  
> 
> And I would like to get direction for the RDMA tool [1] which I'm
> working on it now.
> 
> The overall decision was to use netlink and put it under iproute2
> umbrella. Currently, I have working RFC which is based on
> legacy sysfs interface to ensure that we are converging on
> user-experience even before moving to actual netlink defines.
> 
> An I would like to continue to work on netlink interface, but which lib interface
> should I need to base rdmatool's netlink code?
> 
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg148523.html
> 
> >
> > I don't really like that we make extended ack reporting now dependent
> > on libmnl, which further diverts from iproute's native nl library vs
> > requiring to install another nl library, making the current status
> > quo even worse ... :/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel  

I would prefer new code use libmnl, but using libnetlink would also be ok.
Any later conversion to libmnl would be mostly automated anyway.

The real objection was copy/pasting in the kernel netlink parser.
That was unnecessary bloat.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped