netdev - Re: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?

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: <20170718095838.18afb608@xeon-e3>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:58:38 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
Subject: Re: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:18:06 +0100
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com> wrote:

> I am implementing userspace access to socket information for AF_VSOCK.
> A few hours into writing and testing a /proc/net/vsock seq_file I
> noticed that ss(8) prefers NETLINK_SOCK_DIAG over procfs.
> 
> Before potentially wasting time implementing a legacy interface that
> won't be accepted, I thought it might be good to ask :).
> 
> Which approach is preferred?
> 1. New address families must implement only sock_diag.
> 2. Both sock_diag and procfs must be implemented.
> 3. Implement whichever interface you prefer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefan

You are correct, I am unlikely to take any new code using /proc
in ss.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped