Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > jamal wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 14:34 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >> >>>Thats a lot better than using sysfs, but I think it would be >>>preferrable to use rtnetlink instead of genetlink for network >>>configuration. >> >> >> or you can just hold rtnl while using genl. >> I do agree it would be easier to just use rtnetlink ... > > > The rtnl needs to be held in either case, but using a different > netlink family introduces races in message processing. For example > a simple: > > ip link add dev veth0 > ip route add 10.0.0.0/8 dev veth0 > > might fail because we have two different input queues and the routing > message might get processed before the link message. The consensus from the last thread was pretty much that we need to implement RTM_NEWLINK and RTM_DELLINK, if it is at all possible. So that we can get code reuse between different virtual devices. Although I suspect we will need some per type attribute parsing. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
