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: <20170804113147.GA25254@vergenet.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:31:48 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        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 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.