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: <0d84bd27-2fd1-68c0-5787-0195e95ab1af@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:26:58 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

On 5/18/17 10:24 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 5/18/17 3:02 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> So effectively this means libmnl has to be used for new stuff, noone
>> has time to do the work to convert the existing tooling over (which
>> by itself might be a challenge in testing everything to make sure
>> there are no regressions) given there's not much activity around
>> lib/libnetlink.c anyway, and existing users not using libmnl today
>> won't see/notice new improvements on netlink side when they do an
>> upgrade. So we'll be stuck with that dual library mess pretty much
>> for a very long time. :(
> 
> lib/libnetlink.c with all of its duplicate functions weighs in at just
> 947 LOC -- a mere 12% of the code in lib/. From a total SLOC of iproute2
> it is a negligible part of the code base.
> 
> Given that, there is very little gain -- but a lot of risk in
> regressions -- in converting such a small, low level code base to libmnl
> just for the sake of using a library - something Phil noted in his
> cursory attempt at converting ip to libmnl. ie., The level effort
> required vs the benefit is just not worth it.
> 
> There are so many other parts of the ip code base that need work with a
> much higher return on the time investment.
> 

Stephen: It has been 3 months since the first extack patches were posted
and still nothing in iproute2, all of it hung up on your decision to
require libmnl. Do you plan to finish the libmnl support any time soon
and send out patches?