From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4843 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: if_nameindex/getifaddrs and dhcpcd issue Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:41:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20140408224112.GH26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140408111147.5f79729f@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> <20140408152559.124030b1@vostro> <20140408154537.GG26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140408190807.7dc6b184@vostro> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396996895 28495 80.91.229.3 (8 Apr 2014 22:41:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Timo Teras To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4847-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 09 00:41:28 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WXehq-0000Xn-Nf for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:41:26 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 16295 invoked by uid 550); 8 Apr 2014 22:41:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 16287 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2014 22:41:25 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4843 Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Justin Cormack wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Timo Teras wrote: > > But as to netlink, all the addresses I've looked at are not wrapped in > > struct sockaddr. They are netlink 'attributes' that are variable > > length. > > > > The only ABI mess in netlink has been with 32-bit apps running on > > 64-bit kernels. And it has been kernel header issue. > > > > Please let me know details on the claimed deficiency of netlink. It *a > > lot* better (but also a bit complicated - and even more often > > misunderstood [because the #define's exposed by kernel to use it is > > garbage]) than the the traditional APIs IMHO. The 'on wire' protocol of > > netlink is usable though. > > Yes I quite like netlink. If only it was documented it would be a lot > nicer. It is more pleasant to implement it in a dynamicly typed > language than in C with #defines. But I don't think it should be in > libc if possible... As an aside, whether netlink is essential for a full-function modern linux system is orthogonal to whether libc should be using it. A hypothetical non-linux kernel providing linux syscall abi could provide completely different net config utils. Rich