netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] fib_rules: rename FRA_PROTOCOL to FRA

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: <cb26a8d2-c2a9-6b93-3711-c18888c7c010@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:09 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Donald Sharp <sharpd@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] fib_rules: rename FRA_PROTOCOL to FRA_ORIGINATOR

On 3/21/18 3:24 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 20/03/2018 à 18:27, David Ahern a écrit :
>> On 3/20/18 11:04 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>> As the comment said, this attribute defines the originator of the rule,
>>> it's not really a (network) protocol.
>>> Let's rename it accordingly to avoid confusion (difference between
>>> FRA_PROTOCOL and FRA_IP_PROTO was not obvious).
>>>
>>> CC: Donald Sharp <sharpd@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> FRA_PROTOCOL exists only in net-next for now, thus it's still possible to
>>> rename it.
>>>
>>>  drivers/net/vrf.c              |  4 ++--
>>>  include/net/fib_rules.h        |  4 ++--
>>>  include/uapi/linux/fib_rules.h |  2 +-
>>>  net/core/fib_rules.c           | 14 +++++++-------
>>>  4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This protocol is meant to be analogous to rtm_protocol. Changing the
>> name to FRA_ORIGINATOR loses that connection.
> I understand your concerns. But I think the connection still exists after the
> patch because the values used for this field are RTPROT_*
> rtm_protocol is here from ages and we cannot change that. Moreover, FRA_*
> attributes are usually used as a selector or a target, which is not the case for
> a route. Thus I think it's important to carrefully choose the name.

The rule->proto value is not used as a selector. It is passed in, stored
on a rule and returned to userspace. It is book keeping only so an admin
has some idea of which program installed the rule.