netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netdevsim: Restore per-network namespace accounting for fib entries

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 10:36:35 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netdevsim: Restore per-network namespace accounting
 for fib entries

Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 06:02:18AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
>Date: Tue,  6 Aug 2019 12:15:17 -0700
>
>> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>> 
>> Prior to the commit in the fixes tag, the resource controller in netdevsim
>> tracked fib entries and rules per network namespace. Restore that behavior.
>> 
>> Fixes: 5fc494225c1e ("netdevsim: create devlink instance per netdevsim instance")
>> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>
>Applied, thanks for bringing this to our attention and fixing it David.
>
>Jiri, I disagree you on every single possible level.
>
>If you didn't like how netdevsim worked in this area the opportunity to do
>something about it was way back when it went in.

Yeah, I expressed my feelings back then. But that didn't help :(


>
>No matter how completely busted or disagreeable an interface is, once we have
>committed it to a release (and in particular people are knowingly using and
>depending upon it) you cannot break it.

I understand it with real devices, but dummy testing device, who's
purpose is just to test API. Why?


>
>It doesn't matter how much you disagree with something, you cannot break it
>when it's out there and actively in use.
>
>Do you have any idea how much stuff I'd like to break because I think the
>design turned out to be completely wrong?  But I can't.

Sure, me too :) But that is for real devices. That is a different story
as I see it. Apparently, I'm wrong...