netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice bulk deletion

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: <e474e1fc-2b92-92a9-29e4-887654575f1c@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:14:06 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lahav Schlesinger <lschlesinger@...venets.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice
 bulk deletion

On 11/29/21 11:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:30:16 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>> On 11/29/21 6:53 AM, Lahav Schlesinger wrote:
>>> Hi David, while I also don't have any strong preference here, my
>>> reasoning for failing the whole request if one device can't be deleted
>>> was so it will share the behaviour we currently have with group deletion.
>>> If you're okay with this asymmetry I'll send a V4.  
>>
>> good point - new features should be consistent with existing code.
>>
>> You can add another attribute to the request to say 'Skip devices that
>> can not be deleted'.
> 
> The patch is good as is then? I can resurrect it from 'Changes
> Requested' and apply.

Took another look at it. We should fail if a delete request contains
both IFLA_GROUP and IFLA_IFINDEX_LIST since both are not honored. The
logic in rtnl_list_dellink looks ok.

> 
> Any opinion on wrapping the ifindices into separate attrs, Dave?
> I don't think the 32k vs 64k max distinction matters all that much,
> user can send multiple messages, and we could point the extack at
> the correct ifindex's attribute.
> 

no opinion.