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: <20170804094729.00548085@xeon-e3>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:47:29 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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 Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:31:48 +0200
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:26:58PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > 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?  
> 
> FWIIW I would also like to see some way to get this enhancement accepted.

I will put in the libmnl version. If it doesn't work because no one sent
me test cases, then fine. send a patch for that.