netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 07/12] rtnetlink: add new rtm tunnel api for tunnel id filtering

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 17:26:30 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>
Cc:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <stephen@...workplumber.org>, <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        <idosch@...dia.com>, <dsahern@...il.com>, <bpoirier@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 07/12] rtnetlink: add new rtm tunnel api for
 tunnel id filtering

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:52:25 +0000 Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> +	RTM_NEWTUNNEL = 120,
> +#define RTM_NEWTUNNEL	RTM_NEWTUNNEL
> +	RTM_DELTUNNEL,
> +#define RTM_DELTUNNEL	RTM_DELTUNNEL
> +	RTM_GETTUNNEL,
> +#define RTM_GETTUNNEL	RTM_GETTUNNEL

Why create new RTM_ commands instead of using changelink?

I thought we had to add special commands for bridge because
if the target of the command is not a bridge device but possibly 
a bridge port, which could be anything. That's not the case here.

Is it only about the convenience of add/del vs changelink where
we'd potentially have to pass and parse the entire vni list each time?