Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 15:43:59 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=C3=A9?= <olivier@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Chernikov <melifaro@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ::1/128 and 127.0.0.1 address creation ownership Message-ID: <CA%2Bq%2BTcqdbK1EWAPfZ1aMDq-FOjGOqXtTLLCBg6i8rKwVKw-vpw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6D75034B-6F14-49BE-ACFA-522D39D49490@FreeBSD.org> References: <6D75034B-6F14-49BE-ACFA-522D39D49490@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000392dfb05fc4877f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:53=E2=80=AFPM Alexander Chernikov <melifaro@free= bsd.org> wrote: > > My main question here is the desired ownership model. I don=E2=80=99t hav= e a > strong opinion on whether the userland of the kernel should own loopback > creation. > However, I think that: > 1) the behaviour should be consistent (either both of them created by the > userland or both created by the kernel) > 2) the process should be independent (e.g. adding address from one family > shouldn=E2=80=99t result in adding address from the other family). > For example, it can be either userland explicitly creates both or the > kernel creates both on interface up, using protocol hooks). > 3) I=E2=80=99m not sure SIOCSIFADDR should be (ab)used by the drivers ioc= tls(). > That model dates back to BSD 4.4 and doesn=E2=80=99t look well in presenc= e of event > handlers. > Most drivers (default ethernet handler, loop, gre,disc,me,ipsec) just set > IFF_UP there. > > More than happy to hear what other=E2=80=99s think on the issue(s) > > It seems that loopback addresses are optional: I haven't found an RFC requiring their presence, but I'd like to have more information on this. So, the ownership of their creation seems to me good from the userland (i.e.: rc.d): Administrators are free to configure them or not. I agree with point 1 (consistency) and point 2 (independency), and about point 3 I have no technical knowledge here, but the work of cleaning up and making the proposal coherent seems good too :-) Regards, Olivier --000000000000392dfb05fc4877f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fon= t-family:"courier new",monospace"><span style=3D"font-family:Aria= l,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:53=E2=80=AFPM Alexander = Chernikov <<a href=3D"mailto:melifaro@freebsd.org">melifaro@freebsd.org<= /a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote= class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so= lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> My main question here is the desired ownership model. I don=E2=80=99t have = a strong opinion on whether the userland of the kernel should own loopback = creation.<br> However, I think that:<br> 1) the behaviour should be consistent (either both of them created by the u= serland or both created by the kernel)<br> 2) the process should be independent (e.g. adding address from one family s= houldn=E2=80=99t result in adding address from the other family).<br> For example, it can be either userland explicitly creates both or the kerne= l creates both on interface up, using protocol hooks).<br> 3) I=E2=80=99m not sure SIOCSIFADDR should be (ab)used by the drivers ioctl= s(). That model dates back to BSD 4.4 and doesn=E2=80=99t look well in pres= ence of event handlers.<br> Most drivers (default ethernet handler, loop, gre,disc,me,ipsec) just set I= FF_UP there.<br> <br> More than happy to hear what other=E2=80=99s think on the issue(s)<br><br><= /blockquote><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-famil= y:"courier new",monospace"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default"= style=3D"font-family:"courier new",monospace">It seems that loop= back addresses are optional: I haven't found an RFC requiring their pre= sence, but I'd like to have more information on this.<br>So, the owners= hip of their creation seems to me good from the userland (i.e.: rc.d): Admi= nistrators are free to configure them or not.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_= default" style=3D"font-family:"courier new",monospace">I agree wi= th point 1 (consistency) and point 2 (independency), and about point 3 I ha= ve no technical knowledge here, but the work of cleaning up and making the = proposal coherent seems good too :-)</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" styl= e=3D"font-family:"courier new",monospace"><br></div><div class=3D= "gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:"courier new",monospace">Reg= ards,</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:"courier = new",monospace">Olivier</div></div></div> --000000000000392dfb05fc4877f6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bq%2BTcqdbK1EWAPfZ1aMDq-FOjGOqXtTLLCBg6i8rKwVKw-vpw>