On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 20:56 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 10/22/15 at 07:21pm, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 18:45, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > > I understand the race but when does it occur? Whoever creates
> > > the original interface owns it and is resp
On 10/22/15 at 07:21pm, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 18:45, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > I understand the race but when does it occur? Whoever creates
> > the original interface owns it and is responsible for its
> > lifecycle. *Iff* for some reason multiple enti
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 18:45, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 10/22/15 at 05:00pm, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > > With the proposed scenario:
> > > 1. create netns 'new_netns'
> > > 2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to n
On 10/22/15 at 05:00pm, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > With the proposed scenario:
> > 1. create netns 'new_netns'
> > 2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to new_netns
> > 3. in new_netns, delete the interface with ifindex 2
> > 4.
Le 22/10/2015 17:00, Jiri Benc a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
With the proposed scenario:
1. create netns 'new_netns'
2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to new_netns
3. in new_netns, delete the interface with ifindex 2
4. in new_netns, creat
On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 16:52 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 21/10/2015 19:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 17:56, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Jiri Benc
> > > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:25:02 +0200
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:32:14 -070
On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 17:00 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > With the proposed scenario:
> > 1. create netns 'new_netns'
> > 2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to new_netns
> > 3. in new_netns, delete the interface with ifinde
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 17:00, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > With the proposed scenario:
> > 1. create netns 'new_netns'
> > 2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to new_netns
> > 3. in new_netns, delete the interface with i
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:52:13 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> With the proposed scenario:
> 1. create netns 'new_netns'
> 2. in root netns, move the interface with ifindex 2 to new_netns
> 3. in new_netns, delete the interface with ifindex 2
> 4. in new_netns, create an interface - it will get ifind
Le 21/10/2015 19:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa a écrit :
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 17:56, David Miller wrote:
From: Jiri Benc
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:25:02 +0200
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
As you say the apps are broken, so file a bug and have them fixe
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 17:56, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Benc
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:25:02 +0200
>
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> >> As you say the apps are broken, so file a bug and have them fixed.
> >>
> >> The assumption is clearly in
From: Jiri Benc
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:25:02 +0200
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>> As you say the apps are broken, so file a bug and have them fixed.
>>
>> The assumption is clearly invalid, so apps cannot make such an
>> assumption.
>
> Does it mean you wo
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> As you say the apps are broken, so file a bug and have them fixed.
>
> The assumption is clearly invalid, so apps cannot make such an
> assumption.
Does it mean you would be okay with a patch that always allocates and
assigns a new i
From: Jiri Benc
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:46:13 +0200
> For example, we could always alloc a new ifindex when moving interfaces
> between name spaces. That would be probably the tiniest race window we
> could get to (still not zero!) but I guess it would break apps that
> assume that ifindex does
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:43:32 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> Fix the real problem, then come talk to us.
I don't think the real problem is fixable, given that any kind of
unique non-settable identifier would break CRIU. And anything settable
will have the exact same problem. All we can do is na
From: Jiri Benc
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:07:59 +0200
> This of course does not fix the reuse problem for the applications;
> it just makes it less likely to be hit in common usage patterns.
Not only does this not fix the problem, it makes the incentive to fix
that problem much smaller.
Therefo
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:06:49AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:11:58 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > it looks dangerous.
> > Does it mean that 'for (4B) { create new dev; free old dev; }
> > will keep incrementing that max index and dos it eventually?
>
> This is not chan
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:11:58 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> it looks dangerous.
> Does it mean that 'for (4B) { create new dev; free old dev; }
> will keep incrementing that max index and dos it eventually?
This is not changed by this patch in any way. As for the current
behavior (with or with
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:07:59PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> When moving interfaces to a different netns, the ifindex of the interface is
> kept if possible. However, this is not kept in sync with allocation of new
> interfaces in the target netns. While the ifindex will be skipped when
> creating
When moving interfaces to a different netns, the ifindex of the interface is
kept if possible. However, this is not kept in sync with allocation of new
interfaces in the target netns. While the ifindex will be skipped when
creating a new interface in the netns, it will be reused when the old
interf
20 matches
Mail list logo
