Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 10:01:40AM CEST, antonio@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 07/10/24 17:32, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:02:17AM CEST, antonio@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> > +operations:
>> > + list:
>> > + -
>> > + name: dev-new
>> > + attribute-set: ovpn
>> > + flags: [ admin-perm ]
>> > + doc: Create a new interface of type ovpn
>> > + do:
>> > + request:
>> > + attributes:
>> > + - ifname
>> > + - mode
>> > + reply:
>> > + attributes:
>> > + - ifname
>> > + - ifindex
>> > + -
>> > + name: dev-del
>>
>> Why you expose new and del here in ovn specific generic netlink iface?
>> Why can't you use the exising RTNL api which is used for creation and
>> destruction of other types of devices?
>
>That was my original approach in v1, but it was argued that an ovpn interface
>needs a userspace program to be configured and used in a meaningful way,
>therefore it was decided to concentrate all iface mgmt APIs along with the
>others in the netlink family and to not expose any RTNL ops.
Can you please point me to the message id?
>
>However, recently we decided to add a dellink implementation for better
>integration with network namespaces and to allow the user to wipe a dangling
>interface.
Hmm, one more argument to have symmetric add/del impletentation in RTNL
>
>In the future we are planning to also add the possibility to create a
>"persistent interface", that is an interface created before launching any
>userspace program and that survives when the latter is stopped.
>I can guess this functionality may be better suited for RTNL, but I am not
>sure yet.
That would be quite confusing to have RTNL and genetlink iface to
add/del device. From what you described above, makes more sent to have
it just in RTNL
>
>@Jiri: do you have any particular opinion why we should use RTNL ops and not
>netlink for creating/destroying interfaces? I feel this is mostly a matter of
>taste, but maybe there are technical reasons we should consider.
Well. technically, you can probabaly do both. But it is quite common
that you can add/delete these kind of devices over RTNL. Lots of
examples. People are used to it, aligns with existing flows.
>
>Thanks a lot for your contribution.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>>
>>
>> ip link add [link DEV | parentdev NAME] [ name ] NAME
>> [ txqueuelen PACKETS ]
>> [ address LLADDR ]
>> [ broadcast LLADDR ]
>> [ mtu MTU ] [index IDX ]
>> [ numtxqueues QUEUE_COUNT ]
>> [ numrxqueues QUEUE_COUNT ]
>> [ netns { PID | NETNSNAME | NETNSFILE } ]
>> type TYPE [ ARGS ]
>>
>> ip link delete { DEVICE | dev DEVICE | group DEVGROUP } type TYPE [ ARGS ]
>>
>> Lots of examples of existing types creation is for example here:
>> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/10/22/introduction-to-linux-interfaces-for-virtual-networking
>>
>>
>>
>> > + attribute-set: ovpn
>> > + flags: [ admin-perm ]
>> > + doc: Delete existing interface of type ovpn
>> > + do:
>> > + pre: ovpn-nl-pre-doit
>> > + post: ovpn-nl-post-doit
>> > + request:
>> > + attributes:
>> > + - ifindex
>>
>> [...]
>
>--
>Antonio Quartulli
>OpenVPN Inc.
