From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH] Netlink messages for multicast HW addr programming Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:22:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20160203142250.GB2219@nanopsycho.orion> References: <1453376874-17389-1-git-send-email-pruddy@brocade.com> <20160121200419.GB2251@nanopsycho.orion> <1453474315.20378.7.camel@brocade.com> <20160122150508.GD2211@nanopsycho.orion> <1453477775.20378.15.camel@brocade.com> <20160123075331.GA2193@nanopsycho.orion> <1454508881.3700.63.camel@brocade.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , David Stapleton , Olufemi Komolafe , Stephen Hemminger To: Patrick Ruddy Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:33021 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412AbcBCOWx (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:22:53 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l66so166002950wml.0 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:22:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1454508881.3700.63.camel@brocade.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:14:41PM CET, pruddy@Brocade.com wrote: >On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 08:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:49:36PM CET, pruddy@Brocade.com wrote: >> >On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 16:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:51:55PM CET, pruddy@Brocade.com wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 21:04 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:47:54PM CET, pruddy@brocade.com wrote: >> >> >> >Add RTM_NEWADDR and RTM_DELADDR netlink messages to indicate >> >> >> >interest in specific multicast hardware addresses. These messages >> >> >> >are sent when addressed are added or deleted from the appropriate >> >> >> >interface driver. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Signed-off-by: Patrick Ruddy >> >> >> > >> >> >> >diff --git a/net/core/dev_addr_lists.c b/net/core/dev_addr_lists.c >> >> >> >index c0548d2..a0ebadd 100644 >> >> >> >--- a/net/core/dev_addr_lists.c >> >> >> >+++ b/net/core/dev_addr_lists.c >> >> >> >@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ >> >> >> > */ >> >> >> > >> >> >> > #include >> >> >> >+#include >> >> >> > #include >> >> >> > #include >> >> >> > #include >> >> >> >@@ -661,6 +662,62 @@ out: >> >> >> > } >> >> >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_mc_add_excl); >> >> >> > >> >> >> >+static int fill_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev, >> >> >> >+ const unsigned char *addr, int type) >> >> >> >+{ >> >> >> >+ struct nlmsghdr *nlh; >> >> >> >+ struct ifaddrmsg *ifm; >> >> >> >+ >> >> >> >+ nlh = nlmsg_put(skb, 0, 0, type, sizeof(*ifm), 0); >> >> >> >+ if (nlh == NULL) >> >> >> >+ return -EMSGSIZE; >> >> >> >+ >> >> >> >+ ifm = nlmsg_data(nlh); >> >> >> >+ ifm->ifa_family = AF_UNSPEC; >> >> >> >+ ifm->ifa_prefixlen = 0; >> >> >> >+ ifm->ifa_flags = IFA_F_PERMANENT; >> >> >> >+ ifm->ifa_scope = RT_SCOPE_LINK; >> >> >> >+ ifm->ifa_index = dev->ifindex; >> >> >> >+ if (nla_put(skb, IFA_ADDRESS, dev->addr_len, addr)) >> >> >> >+ goto nla_put_failure; >> >> >> >+ nlmsg_end(skb, nlh); >> >> >> >> >> >> How can userspace tell if this is a multicast addr? Also, why not add >> >> >> notifications for unicast addrs so we handle both the same? >> >> > >> >> >I am only using this RTM_NEW/DELADDR AF_UNSPEC message for multicast >> >> >addresses. I understand that the unicast addresses are notified in the >> >> >RTM_NEW/DELLINK. >> >> >> >> dev->dev_addr is notified by that. UC addresses do not have any >> >> notification now. >> >It is the multicast MAC address (ie the multicast equivalent of the >> >dev_addr) that we are notifying here right? Not L3 addresses. >> >> I know :) >> >> For example if kernel code calls dev_uc_add or dev_uc_del, thise >> addresses are not notified to the userspace. All I'm saying is, if you >> add notification for dev_mc_add and dev_mc_del, add it for uc variants >> as well. Then you have to distinguish mc and uc in the netlink message. > >One more Q on this. I can use IFA_ADDRESS for unicast addresses and >IFA_MULTICAST for multicast addresses but are these distinctions >actually required since the multicast nature of an address is clear from >the address itself - at least it is for ethernet and ifininet? Please mark them correctly. Thanks.