netdev - Re: [patch net-next v3 13/13] net: expose devlink port over rtnetlink

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: <Y2KT4A6ZGVfcbsfx@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:59:28 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, tariqt@...dia.com, moshe@...dia.com,
        saeedm@...dia.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 13/13] net: expose devlink port over rtnetlink

Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 04:52:49PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:37:00 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Maybe it's time to plumb policies thru to classic netlink, instead of
>> >> creating weird attribute constructs?  
>> >
>> >Not a blocker, FWIW, just pointing out a better alternative.  
>> 
>> Or, even better, move RTnetlink to generic netlink. Really, there is no
>> point to have it as non-generic netlink forever. We moved ethtool there,
>> why not RTnetlink?
>
>As a rewrite?  We could plug in the same callbacks into a genl family
>but the replies / notifications would have different headers depending
>on the socket type which gets hairy, no?

I mean like ethtool, completely side iface, independent, new attrs etc.
We can start with NetdevNetlink for example. Just cover netdev part of
RTNetlink. That is probably most interesting anyway.