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]

Message-ID: <20190912115942.GC7621@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:59:42 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, dcbw@...hat.com,
        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

Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:03:42PM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 04:35:23PM CEST, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:

[...]

>>
>>so to summarize, i think we have discussed the following options to
>>update a netlink list attribute so far:
>>(a) encode an optional attribute/flag in the list attribute in
>>RTM_SETLINK to indicate if it is a add or del
>>(b) Use a flag in RTM_SETLINK and RTM_DELINK to indicate add/del
>>(close to bridge vlan add/del)
>
>Nope, bridge vlan add/del is done according to the cmd, not any flag.
>
>
>>(c) introduce a separate generic msg type to add/del to a list
>>attribute (IIUC this does need a separate msg type per subsystem or
>>netlink API)

Getting back to this, sorry.

Thinking about it for some time, a,b,c have all their issues. Why can't
we have another separate cmd as I originally proposed in this RFC? Does
anyone have any argument against it? Could you please describe?

Because otherwise, I don't feel comfortable going to any of a,b,c :(

Thanks!