netdev - Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2] batman-adv: Add multicast-to-unicast support for multiple targets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 18:20:07 +0100
From:   Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
To:     The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc
         Networking <b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        David Bauer <mail@...id-bauer.net>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2] batman-adv: Add multicast-to-unicast
 support for multiple targets

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:04:54PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 February 2019 14:44:52 CET Linus Lüssing wrote:
> [...]
> > > No new sysfs config files.
> > 
> > Why? The bridge for instance does the same.
> 
> https://patchwork.open-mesh.org/patch/16763/ - here the quote
> 
> On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2016 12:33:01 CEST Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > I strongly believe it is a huge mistake to use sysfs for things like
> > this. This should be done via generic netlink api.
> 
> We don't need to configuration interfaces - we only need the preferred one. If 
> this is sysfs for you guys then we should not have started with generic 
> netlink at all. And why wasn't this brought up now *after* the stuff was 
> merged by David. It isn't the first time that I've stated clearly that there 
> should be no new sysfs configuration files when we switch to genl.
> 
> If it now preferred to have sysfs again for configuration then please discuss 
> it with the netdev folks and find out how the new generic netlink interface 
> can be removed again before the next release.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 	Sven

Sorry, then this is all my misunderstanding. I have no issue with
removing the sysfs part from this patch (I liked sysfs for
prototyping/testing/scripting, but as we have all configuration
options available in batctl that works for me, too).

Thanks for the clarifications.

Regards, Linus