netdev - Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC v4 00/19] batman-adv: netlink restructuring, part 2

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: <1851509.cZK8r6as2N@prime>
Date:   Tue, 05 Feb 2019 18:04:51 +0100
From:   Simon Wunderlich <sw@...onwunderlich.de>
To:     b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org
Cc:     Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC v4 00/19] batman-adv: netlink restructuring, part 2

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 11:47:20 AM CET Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> Aggregated OGM is currently defined as:
> 
> 
> * according to batctl manpage:
> 
>     aggregation|ag [0|1]
>            If no parameter is given the current aggregation setting
>            is displayed. Otherwise the parameter is used to enable or
>            disable OGM packet aggregation.
> 
> * according to sysfs ABI:
> 
>     What:           /sys/class/net/<mesh_iface>/mesh/aggregated_ogms
>     Date:           May 2010
>     Contact:        Marek Lindner <mareklindner@...mailbox.ch>
>     Description:
>                     Indicates whether the batman protocol messages of the
>                     mesh <mesh_iface> shall be aggregated or not.
> 
> So sysfs is only one possible backend for the batctl command. There is 
> currently nothing which I would assume to be aggregatable beside OGMs but
> let  us assume for now that there is now something and some way to
> aggregate things beside OGMs in a save and backward compatible way. Let's
> call this FOO - so we have BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION_OGM_ENABLED and
> BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION_FOO_ENABLED. Or we have BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION as
> an  u32 and just use the second bit as marker for FOO (and of course the
> first bit as marker for OGM).
> 
> Would it now be more preferable to use BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION_OGM_ENABLED
> as  u8 (boolean) or to to switch to BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION (u32) & assign
> single bits to packet types.

I'd prefer BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION_OGM_ENABLED (as we have your patchset now). 
Although it may be technically possible to aggregate other things (e.g. 
broadcasts), I don't think this will be implemented anytime soon, if at all. 
And if we do, we can just make another BATADV_ATTR_AGGREGATION_FOO_ENABLED 
flag.

Cheers,
       Simon
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)