netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] Introduce ip-brctl shell script

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:46:53 +0100
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>, Eric Garver <egarver@...hat.com>,
        Tomas Dolezal <todoleza@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] Introduce ip-brctl shell script

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:12:45 -0700
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:

> This is a convenience wrapper around commands packaged in iproute2. If
> iproute2 adds this wrapper, it will have to carry it and maintain it
> forever. Distributions (Fedora, RHEL, Debian, etc) may see it
> differently and decide to add this patch onto iproute2 that they
> distribute as a means for dropping bridge-utils. That's a reasonable
> migration choice. It is just not something upstream iproute2 should carry.

I see what you mean now, I didn't think of that. Sure, that also
sounds reasonable.

I still think this wrapper would require basically zero maintenance,
and carrying it would outweigh the burden at large -- and we could also
use it as a tool to get users familiar with ip-link and 'bridge' by
printing the equivalent syntax before executing the commands.

Anyway, I'll inform downstream maintainers about this option.

-- 
Stefano