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: <20231204082354.78122161@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:23:54 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next 0/3] netlink carrier race workaround

On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 19:51:28 +0100 Johannes Berg wrote:
> I think I wouldn't mind now, and perhaps if we want to sync in netlink
> we should also do this here so that it's consistent, but I'm not sure
> I'd want this to be the only way to do it, I might imagine that someone
> might want this in some kind of container that doesn't necessarily have
> (full) access there? Dunno.

Also dunno :) We can add a "sync" version of netif_carrier_ok()
and then call if from whatever places we need.

> We _could_ also use an input attribute on the rtnl_getlink() call to
> have userspace explicitly opt in to doing the sync before returning
> information?

Yeah, maybe.. IMHO a more "Rusty Russell API levels" thing to do would
be to allow opting out, as those who set the magic flag "know what they
are doing" and returning unsync'ed carrier may be surprising.
Also a "don't sync flag" we can add later, once someone who actually
cares appears, avoiding uAPI growth 😁️

Anyway, up to you :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ