netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73

To: krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx (Krishna Kumar)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 05:17:53 +0400 (MSD)
Cc: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307141300520.5140-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Krishna Kumar" at 14, 2003 03:35:15
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello!

> inet6_fill_ifaddr (and introduce RTM_IFACEFLAGS). This will be specific to
> IPv6. Are you agreeable to this ?
...
> +     IFA_IFFLAGS,

What's about ifa_flags? There is some space there, and the things
kept there now: TENTATIVE/DEPRECATED et al. are close relatives
of O/M.


> - I believe we need #3 for the reasons given above.

This does not pass through Occam's razor. Why not to give a filter to plain
RTM_GETROUTE? We did not implement filtering not because we do not want,
but because we (me, is more appropriate) are lazy.


Also, I am not sure that the interface should include things sort of

+       if ((addr_type & (IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL | IPV6_ADDR_LOOPBACK |
+                       IPV6_ADDR_MULTICAST)) != 0 ||
+                       addr_type == IPV6_ADDR_ANY)

For kernel all they are direct routes, if the application wants to apply
some policy not formulated in terms of filters for RTM_GETROUTE, let it
to filter itself. Moreover, I used to emphasize that user of rtnetlink
should not believe to reliability of kernel filtering. It is just necessary
measure to guarantee that a new application, which is aware of a new
attribute, will behave correctly with older kernels, which are not aware
of this attribute. Not a requirement, of course.

Anyway, if you want to apply such specific policy, you can add a flag
to rtm_flags, which would say: RTM_F_OFFICIALLY_PREFIX and base filtering
on this flag, when it is given.

Alexey

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>