Re: [PATCH net-next v24 18/23] ovpn: implement peer add/get/dump/delete via netlink

[Sabrina Dubroca]

Hello Antonio,

A few questions wrt the API:

2025-03-18, 02:40:53 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> +static bool ovpn_nl_attr_sockaddr_remote(struct nlattr **attrs,
> +					 struct sockaddr_storage *ss)
> +{
> +	struct sockaddr_in6 *sin6;
> +	struct sockaddr_in *sin;
> +	struct in6_addr *in6;
> +	__be16 port = 0;
> +	__be32 *in;
> +
> +	ss->ss_family = AF_UNSPEC;
> +
> +	if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_PORT])
> +		port = nla_get_be16(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_REMOTE_PORT]);

What's the expected behavior if REMOTE_PORT isn't provided? We'll send
packets do port 0 (which I'm guessing will get dropped on the other
side) until we get a message from the peer and float sets the correct
port/address?


> +static int ovpn_nl_peer_modify(struct ovpn_peer *peer, struct genl_info *info,
> +			       struct nlattr **attrs)
> +{
[...]
> +	/* when setting the keepalive, both parameters have to be configured */
> +	if (attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL] &&
> +	    attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_TIMEOUT]) {
> +		interv = nla_get_u32(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL]);
> +		timeout = nla_get_u32(attrs[OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_TIMEOUT]);
> +		ovpn_peer_keepalive_set(peer, interv, timeout);

Should we interpret OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL = 0 &&
OVPN_A_PEER_KEEPALIVE_TIMEOUT == 0 as "disable keepalive/timeout" on
an active peer?  And maybe "one set to 0, the other set to some
non-zero value" as invalid?  Setting either value to 0 doesn't seem
very useful (timeout = 0 will probably kill the peer immediately, and
I suspect interval = 0 would be quite spammy).

-- 
Sabrina