netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/6] ip6tlvs: Add netlink interface

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:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:15:57 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/6] ip6tlvs: Add netlink interface

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:55 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/22/19 6:33 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 11:43 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com
> > <mailto:dsahern@...il.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 4/19/19 4:36 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >     > Add a netlink interface to manage the TX TLV parameters. Managed
> >     > parameters include those for validating and sending TLVs being sent
> >     > such as alignment, TLV ordering, length limits, etc.
> >     >
> >
> >     Why generic netlink for managing IPv6 extensions?
> >
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > It allows control over permissions to use specific options. Also, admin
> > can add TLVs in the system without requiring specific kernel support.
> > The latter in combination with datagram interfaces made bringing up Path
> > MTU option at IETF hackathon a breeze (much easier time than FreeBSD
> > guys were having :-) ).
> >
>
> Hi Tom: I was asking why can't this be done with rtnetlink? How does the
> genl interface make this easier / better?

David,

Looking at the genl How-to, it seems like genl is appropriate. We can
make family for IPv6 and eventually IPv4. Registeration is straight
forward and it's extensible if we need new parameters (without having
to touch rtnetlink.h).

Is there are particular reason why you think rtnetlink would be more
appropriate?

Thanks,
Tom