netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mpls: add handlers

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: <c6fc221b-c0fa-1dbc-d1e2-a746b722dcd7@6wind.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:35:39 +0200
From:   Amine Kherbouche <amine.kherbouche@...nd.com>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mpls: add handlers



On 11/08/2017 16:37, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:34 AM, David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Amine Kherbouche wrote:
>>> Mpls handler allows creation/deletion of mpls routes without using
>>> rtnetlink. When an incoming mpls packet matches this route, the saved
>>> function handler is called.
>> Since I originally authored this patch, I have come to believe that it
>> might be unneccessarily complicated.  It is unlikely that a lot of
>> different "handlers" will exist here;  the only things I can think of
>> are VPLS support and BIER-MPLS multicast replication.  I'm not saying
>> it's a bad idea, but, well, this was in the README that I gave to 6WIND
>> with this code:
>>
>> ...
> yes, I would also prefer just exporting the functions  and calling
> them directly instead of adding a
> handler layer. We can move to that later if it becomes necessary.
I understand that the handler layer is an overhead (as said by David's
note), and I agree with the solution for exporting the mpls functions that
allows route creation/deletion, but how about forwarding the right mpls
packet to the right vpls device with the device ptr? I don't see
another way.