netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] net: neigh: persist proxy config across link flaps

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:14:51 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Decotigny <ddecotig@...gle.com>
Cc:     Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>,
        David Decotigny <decot+git@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
        Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com>,
        Thomas Zeitlhofer <thomas.zeitlhofer+lkml@...it.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] net: neigh: persist proxy config across link flaps

On 12/15/22 2:16 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:36:32 -0800 David Decotigny wrote:
>>> Makes sense. This is not urgent, tho, right?  
>>
>> Not that kind of urgent.
>>
>> FTR, in the v2 you suggested to use NUD_PERMANENT,
> 
> I think that was Alex. I don't have a strong preference. I could see
> arguments being made in both directions (basically whether it's more
> important to leave objects which are clearly not cache vs we care 
> more about consistent behavior based on the permanent flag itself).
> 
> Let's limit the reposts until experts are in town ;)
> 
>>  I can try to see how this would look like. Note that this will make
>> the patch larger and more intrusive, and with potentially a behavior
>> change for whoever uses the netlink API directly instead of the
>> iproute2 implementation for ip neigh X proxy things.

My thinking is inline with Alex's comment on v2.