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: <20190913082121.GD2330@nanopsycho>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:21:21 +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

Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:59:42PM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>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

If we do this, how do you imagine this is going to be used from cmdline?
ip link set ? How exactly?

Thanks!


>>>(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!
>