From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Use sock_diag instead of procfs for new address families? Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:18:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20170718161806.GA21151@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jorgen Hansen To: "David S. Miller" , Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54756 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751393AbdGRQSJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:18:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZbjS+AAoJEJykq7OBq3PICf4H/33jKPzHOSRorIntXf6yIs7I bphaED6/0TrTvCC5zeRkEJ9eSKvwRFerxmAfxQZ5sx34pLrgZMSvgakiOYqDxTt1 Xl4EbvGjUnn8jd6388DZb9l8FSNuD3XWUtUDMc8/xLvIPugTQ9Pftf/CF8cLcKOK Hyphf4Vr4ICSwGHIiTiclx43dVdUOTtEmdmitMIwgG52SChrbhCmb/K/s+cGaaDv NgHz15r78QsTwGFeSexHg4N6FQZIM9G99aq2dgQxby3JUR5vDixOvSQ83nJjOfMS zKm6moR9eyOMspzJISdVdiqhLeTliY/+PLql53as+F8CCiKAp56kzDE4HIoi/s0= =k42u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--