netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Add new protocol attribute to IP addresses

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: <20220204184001.1622660-1-Jacques.De.Laval@westermo.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 19:40:01 +0100
From:   Jacques de Laval <Jacques.De.Laval@...termo.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacques de Laval <Jacques.De.Laval@...termo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Add new protocol attribute to IP addresses

On 2022-02-04 19:07 -0800, David Ahern wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:31:06 +0100 Jacques de Laval wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/net/if_inet6.h b/include/net/if_inet6.h
> > index 653e7d0f65cb..f7c270b24167 100644
> > --- a/include/net/if_inet6.h
> > +++ b/include/net/if_inet6.h
> > @@ -73,6 +73,8 @@ struct inet6_ifaddr {
> >  
> >  	struct rcu_head		rcu;
> >  	struct in6_addr		peer_addr;
> > +
> > +	__u8			ifa_proto;
>
> nit: the __ types are for uAPI, you can use a normal u8 here.
> 

Thanks you! I will fix this in v2.

> >  };
> >  
> >  struct ip6_sf_socklist {
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_addr.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_addr.h
> > index dfcf3ce0097f..2aa46b9c9961 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/if_addr.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_addr.h
> 
> > @@ -69,4 +70,7 @@ struct ifa_cacheinfo {
> >  #define IFA_PAYLOAD(n) NLMSG_PAYLOAD(n,sizeof(struct ifaddrmsg))
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +/* ifa_protocol */
> > +#define IFAPROT_UNSPEC	0
> > +
> >  #endif
>
> What's the purpose of defining this as a constant?

Agreed, there's not much point if no other protocol labels are reserved.
If I can't come up with a list of labels that a reasonable to reserve I
should remove the constant in v2.