netdev - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

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: <20190228151349-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:55 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, liran.alon@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC
 PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use
 the bypass framework)

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56:41AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;)  But users can
> > > just blacklist, too.  Anyway, I think this is far better than module
> > > parameters  
> > 
> > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what?
> 
> I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable
> net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve
> the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make
> the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running
> devices if they are slaves).
> 
> > > for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S  
> > 
> > I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only
> > master name matters.  So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking
> > about here.
> 
> Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename
> the auto-bonded lower devices.  Which can be done trivially if it was 
> a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond.  We are just
> providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel.  If there are
> extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better
> solved in user space.

OK so it seems that you would be happy with a combination of the module
parameter disabling failover completely and renaming primary in kernel?
Did I get it right?

-- 
MST