* Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?
@ 2017-07-18 16:18 Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-07-18 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-07-18 17:46 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-07-18 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller, Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev, Jorgen Hansen
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]
I am implementing userspace access to socket information for AF_VSOCK.
A few hours into writing and testing a /proc/net/vsock seq_file I
noticed that ss(8) prefers NETLINK_SOCK_DIAG over procfs.
Before potentially wasting time implementing a legacy interface that
won't be accepted, I thought it might be good to ask :).
Which approach is preferred?
1. New address families must implement only sock_diag.
2. Both sock_diag and procfs must be implemented.
3. Implement whichever interface you prefer.
Thanks,
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?
2017-07-18 16:18 Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families? Stefan Hajnoczi
@ 2017-07-18 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-07-19 8:48 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-07-18 17:46 ` David Miller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2017-07-18 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev, Jorgen Hansen
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:18:06 +0100
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> I am implementing userspace access to socket information for AF_VSOCK.
> A few hours into writing and testing a /proc/net/vsock seq_file I
> noticed that ss(8) prefers NETLINK_SOCK_DIAG over procfs.
>
> Before potentially wasting time implementing a legacy interface that
> won't be accepted, I thought it might be good to ask :).
>
> Which approach is preferred?
> 1. New address families must implement only sock_diag.
> 2. Both sock_diag and procfs must be implemented.
> 3. Implement whichever interface you prefer.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
You are correct, I am unlikely to take any new code using /proc
in ss.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?
2017-07-18 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-07-19 8:48 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-07-19 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev, Jorgen Hansen
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:58:38AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:18:06 +0100
> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I am implementing userspace access to socket information for AF_VSOCK.
> > A few hours into writing and testing a /proc/net/vsock seq_file I
> > noticed that ss(8) prefers NETLINK_SOCK_DIAG over procfs.
> >
> > Before potentially wasting time implementing a legacy interface that
> > won't be accepted, I thought it might be good to ask :).
> >
> > Which approach is preferred?
> > 1. New address families must implement only sock_diag.
> > 2. Both sock_diag and procfs must be implemented.
> > 3. Implement whichever interface you prefer.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan
>
> You are correct, I am unlikely to take any new code using /proc
> in ss.
Thanks Stephen and David, will switch to sock_diag.
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families?
2017-07-18 16:18 Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families? Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-07-18 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-07-18 17:46 ` David Miller
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2017-07-18 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stefanha; +Cc: stephen, netdev, jhansen
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:18:06 +0100
> I am implementing userspace access to socket information for AF_VSOCK.
> A few hours into writing and testing a /proc/net/vsock seq_file I
> noticed that ss(8) prefers NETLINK_SOCK_DIAG over procfs.
>
> Before potentially wasting time implementing a legacy interface that
> won't be accepted, I thought it might be good to ask :).
>
> Which approach is preferred?
> 1. New address families must implement only sock_diag.
> 2. Both sock_diag and procfs must be implemented.
> 3. Implement whichever interface you prefer.
Do not use procfs, that is for sure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-07-19 8:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-07-18 16:18 Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families? Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-07-18 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-07-19 8:48 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-07-18 17:46 ` David Miller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).