Re: [patch net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to create address with IFLA_F_TEMPORARY flag

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 01:05:34AM CEST, vyasevich@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> This is needed in order to implement userspace address configuration,
>> namely ip6-privacy (rfc4941) in NetworkManager.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>> ---
>>  net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> index cd3fb30..962c7c9 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> @@ -3715,7 +3715,8 @@ inet6_rtm_newaddr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
>>                 return -ENODEV;
>>
>>         /* We ignore other flags so far. */
>> -       ifa_flags = ifm->ifa_flags & (IFA_F_NODAD | IFA_F_HOMEADDRESS);
>> +       ifa_flags = ifm->ifa_flags & (IFA_F_NODAD | IFA_F_HOMEADDRESS |
>> +                                     IFA_F_TEMPORARY);
>>
>>         ifa = ipv6_get_ifaddr(net, pfx, dev, 1);
>>         if (ifa == NULL) {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>
>Jiri
>
>So, is the idea behind this is that all of temp address management
>would be done in user space?  If so, then you
>may have to verify that no-one sets the lifetime values on the prefix
>in your other patch.   I am still trying to figure out
>why this would be needed.

The idea is to provide possibility to do address configuration not in
kernel but rather in userspace (as it is done for example in NetworkManager)

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it problem to have the
possibility to set lifetime even for temporary prefix?

>
>Thanks
>-vlad