netdev - Re: Netlink messages without NLM_F

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170607170702.GB7507@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:07:02 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kaike Wan <kaike.wan@...el.com>, John Fleck <john.fleck@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netlink messages without NLM_F_REQUEST flag

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:00:37PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > > <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > >> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for
> > > >> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we
> > > >> really need it? What are the scenarios?  In my use case, which is
> > > >> for sure different from yours, I'm always setting NLM_F_REQUEST
> > > >> while communicating with kernel.
> > > >
> > > > If I recall the user space SA code issues REQUESTS from the kernel to
> > > > userspace, so userspace returns with the response format. This is
> > > > abnormal for netlink hence the special function.
> > >
> > > In netlink semantics, kernel side is supposed to send netlink
> > > notification message and userspace is supposed to send REQUEST.
> >
> > That pattern is for async communications, the SA stuff needs a sync
> > protocol, unfortunately.
> 
> There is special flag NLM_F_ACK for it and userspace will set
> NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK once synchronization is needed.

AFAIK, that is different, that is acking and retriggering a single shot
notification, not completing a kernel initiated handshake.

Jason