netdev - Re: [patch net-next rfc 3/7] net: rtnetlink: add commands to add and delete alternative ifnames

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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:43:10 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, dcbw@...hat.com,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, parav@...lanox.com,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next rfc 3/7] net: rtnetlink: add commands to add
 and delete alternative ifnames

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:13:39 -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:31 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> > Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:37:26AM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:  
> > >On 8/11/19 7:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:  
> > >> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> > >>> Could you please write me an example message of add/remove?  
> > >>
> > >> altnames are for existing netdevs, yes? existing netdevs have an id and
> > >> a name - 2 existing references for identifying the existing netdev for
> > >> which an altname will be added. Even using the altname as the main
> > >> 'handle' for a setlink change, I see no reason why the GETLINK api can
> > >> not take an the IFLA_ALT_IFNAME and return the full details of the
> > >> device if the altname is unique.
> > >>
> > >> So, what do the new RTM commands give you that you can not do with
> > >> RTM_*LINK?
> > >
> > >To put this another way, the ALT_NAME is an attribute of an object - a
> > >LINK. It is *not* a separate object which requires its own set of
> > >commands for manipulating.  
> >
> > Okay, again, could you provide example of a message to add/remove
> > altname using existing setlink message? Thanks!  
> 
> Will the below work ?... just throwing an example for discussion:
> 
> make the name list a nested list
> IFLA_ALT_NAMES
>         IFLA_ALT_NAME_OP /* ADD or DEL used with setlink */
>         IFLA_ALT_NAME
>         IFLA_ALT_NAME_LIST
> 
> With RTM_NEWLINK  you can specify a list to set and unset
> With RTM_SETLINK  you can specify an individual name with a add or del op
> 
> notifications will always be RTM_NEWLINK with the full list.
> 
> The nested attribute can be structured differently.
> 
> Only thing is i am worried about increasing the size of link dump and
> notification msgs.

Is not adding commands better because it's easier to deal with the
RTM_NEWLINK notification? I must say it's unclear from the thread why
muxing the op through RTM_SETLINK is preferable. IMHO new op is
cleaner, do we have precedent for such IFLA_.*_OP-style attributes?