On Tuesday 17 August 2021 18:21:55 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 17 August 2021 18:05:25 Guillaume Nault wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:23:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > On Monday 16 August 2021 18:11:14 Guillaume Nault wrote: > > > > Do you have plans for adding netlink support to pppd? If so, is the > > > > project ready to accept such code? > > > > > > Yes, I have already some WIP code and I'm planning to send a pull > > > request to pppd on github for it. I guess that it could be accepted, > > > > I guess you can easily use the netlink api for cases where the "unit" > > option isn't specified and fall back to the ioctl api when it is. If > > all goes well, then we can extend the netlink api to accept a unit id. > > > > But what about the lack of netlink feedback about the created > > interface? Are you restricted to use netlink only when the "ifname" > > option is provided? > > Exactly, this is how I wrote my WIP code... Sorry for a long delay (I forgot about it). Now I created pull request for pppd https://github.com/ppp-project/ppp/pull/354 which adds support for creating ppp interface via rtnetlink. rtnetlink is used only when ppp unit id was not provided and interface name was provided. > > > specially if there still would be backward compatibility via ioctl for > > > kernels which do not support rtnl API. > > > > Indeed, I'd expect keeping compatiblitity with old kernels that only > > have the ioctl api to be a must (but I have no experience contributing > > to the pppd project). > > > > > One of the argument which can be > > > used why rtnl API is better, is fixing issue: atomic creating of > > > interface with specific name. > > > > Yes, that looks useful. > >
