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:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 08:53:41 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.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

Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 02:29:13AM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>On 8/12/19 3:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> 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?
>
>An alternative name for a link is not a primary object; it is only an
>attribute of a link and links are manipulated through RTM_*LINK commands.

So? Still, doing the OP thing inside the message feels wrong, "primary
object" or now. Why can't the "secondary object" (whatever it is) have
separate command? What is the limitation? I'm trying to understand the
reason.