netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC iproute2-next 1/2] rdma: add 'link add/delete' commands

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: <be951bde-9498-7d96-92bf-f6d8280aed68@opengridcomputing.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:23:43 -0600
From:   Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     dsahern@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        BMT@...ich.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC iproute2-next 1/2] rdma: add 'link add/delete'
 commands



On 11/28/2018 2:08 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 01:34:14PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> +	rd_prepare_msg(rd, RDMA_NLDEV_CMD_NEWLINK, &seq,
>>>>>> +		       (NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK));
>>>>>> +	mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_NAME, name);
>>>>>> +	mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_LINK_TYPE, type);
>>>>>> +	mnl_attr_put_strz(rd->nlh, RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_NDEV_NAME, dev);
>>>>>> +	ret = rd_send_msg(rd);
>>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	ret = rd_recv_msg(rd, link_add_parse_cb, rd, seq);
>>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>>> +		perror(NULL);
>>>>> Why do you need rd_recv_msg()? I think that it is not needed, at least
>>>>> for rename, I didn't need it.
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git/tree/rdma/dev.c#n244
>>>> To get the response of if it was successfully added.  It provides the
>>>> errno value.
>>> If I don't do the rd_recv_msg, then adding the same name twice fails
>>> without any error notification.  Ditto for deleting a non-existent
>>> link.  So the rd_recv_msg() allows getting the failure reason (and
>>> detecting the failure). 
>>>
>> Shouldn't extack provide such information as part of NLM_F_ACK flag?
>>
>> just shooting into the air, will take more close look tomorrow.
> OK, it was easier than I thought.
>
> You are right, need both send and receive to get the reason.
>
> Can you prepare general function and update rename part too?
> Something like send_receive(...) with dummy callback for receive path.
>
> Thanks

Sure, I'll whip something up for the next version of the patch series...