netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next, v2] netlink: add IGMP/MLD join/leave notifications

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADXeF1EyFzBh5AbE_ieJqh2q9k-Z1E9vmryyTBmekKV3rAkORQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:13:54 +0900
From: Yuyang Huang <yuyanghuang@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, jiri@...nulli.us, 
	stephen@...workplumber.org, jimictw@...gle.com, prohr@...gle.com, 
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>, 
	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, Patrick Ruddy <pruddy@...tta.att-mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next, v2] netlink: add IGMP/MLD join/leave notifications

Hi Paolo

> I think the most important thing is consistency. This patch is
> inconsistent WRT rtm_scope among ipv4 and ipv6, you should ensure
> similar behavior among them.

> Existing ip-related notification always use RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE with the
> rater suspect exception of mctp. Possibly using RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE here
> too could be fitting.

Thank you very much for the suggestion. To ensure consistency, I'll
use RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE for both IPv4 and IPv6 notifications, unless
other reviewers have concerns.

Thanks,
Yuyang

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 9:10 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/24 10:21, Yuyang Huang wrote:
> >> Why the IPv4 scope use RT_SCOPE_LINK,
> >
> > I'm unsure if I'm setting the IPv4 rt scope correctly.
> >
> > I read the following document for rtm_scope:
> >
> > ```
> > /* rtm_scope
> >
> >    Really it is not scope, but sort of distance to the destination.
> >    NOWHERE are reserved for not existing destinations, HOST is our
> >    local addresses, LINK are destinations, located on directly attached
> >    link and UNIVERSE is everywhere in the Universe.
> >
> >    Intermediate values are also possible f.e. interior routes
> >    could be assigned a value between UNIVERSE and LINK.
> > */
> > ```
>
> I think the most important thing is consistency. This patch is
> inconsistent WRT rtm_scope among ipv4 and ipv6, you should ensure
> similar behavior among them.
>
> Existing ip-related notification always use RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE with the
> rater suspect exception of mctp. Possibly using RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE here
> too could be fitting.
>
> /P
>