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: <20211129101031.25d35a5d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:10:31 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
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 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.

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.