[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f5e05a3-7d07-0412-1db2-8a848aa868d9@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:10:51 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jacques de Laval <Jacques.De.Laval@...termo.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Add new protocol attribute to IP
addresses
On 2/4/22 11:07 AM, Jacques de Laval wrote:
>>> @@ -69,4 +70,7 @@ struct ifa_cacheinfo {
>>> #define IFA_PAYLOAD(n) NLMSG_PAYLOAD(n,sizeof(struct ifaddrmsg))
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +/* ifa_protocol */
>>> +#define IFAPROT_UNSPEC 0
>>
>> *If* the value is just a passthrough (userspace to kernel and back), no
>> need for this uapi. However, have you considered builtin protocol labels
>> - e.g. for autoconf, LLA, etc. Kernel generated vs RAs vs userspace
>> adding it.
>
> Agreed. For my own (very isolated) use case I only need the passthrough,
> but I can see that it would make sense to standardize some labels.
> I was trying to give this some thought but I have to admit I copped out
> because of my limited knowledge on what labels would be reasonable to
> reserve.
>
> Based on what you mention, do you think the list bellow would make sense?
>
> #define IFAPROT_UNSPEC 0 /* unspecified */
> #define IFAPROT_KERNEL_LO 1 /* loopback */
> #define IFAPROT_KERNEL_RA 2 /* auto assigned by kernel from router announcement */
> #define IFAPROT_KERNEL_LL 3 /* link-local set by kernel */
Those above look good to me.
> #define IFAPROT_STATIC 4 /* set by admin */
> #define IFAPROT_AUTO 5 /* DHCP, BOOTP etc. */
> #define IFAPROT_LL 6 /* link-local set by userspace */
>
> Or do you think it needs more granularity?
anything coming from userspace can just be a passthrough, so protocol
label is only set if it is an autonomous action by the kernel or some
app passed in a value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists