Hi all,

Having read your replies, I think, the best option is NOT to change
netman's backend as suggested by Tobias Hunger. This means, I will
heed the advice of Rainer Weikusat, KatolaZ and Hendrik Boom.

Regarding the advice from aitor_czr, I wish to thank aitor,
notwithstanding I will not need to change anything.

As it is, netman is functioning happily, even giving the choice of
closing it while the connection remains strong, dependable and
lasting. This is a plus compared to other network managers.

Your support is greatly appreciated.

Edward

On 09/09/2015, Edward Bartolo <edbarx@???> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having read your replies, I think, the best option is NOT to change
> netman's backend as suggested by Tobias Hunger. This means, I will
> heed the advice of Rainer Weikusat, KatolaZ and Hendrik Boom.
>
> Regarding the advice from aitor_czr, I wish to thank aitor,
> notwithstanding I will not need to change anything.
>
> As it is, netman is functioning happily, even giving the choice of
> closing it while the connection remains strong, dependable and
> lasting. This is a plus compared to other network managers.
>
> Your support is greatly appreciated.
>
> Edward
>
> On 09/09/2015, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:53:33PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:40:12PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I think, a simple way to avoid the backend having to call external
>>> > programs like ifup and ifdown, is to use code belonging to these
>>> > programs as it they were functions. This means, their code would be
>>> > used like this:
>>> >
>>> > Suppose int main(int argc, char * argv[]) is the main function for
>>> > ifup. The main function's name would be changed like this, and the
>>> > other code belonging to ifup would be used.
>>> >
>>> > int ifup_main(int argc, char * argv[]);
>>> >
>>> > If I am correct, this should allow the backend to avoid having to use
>>> > execl to call ifup or ifdown or whatever other external program.
>>> >
>>>
>>> So you are basically suggesting that your backend should swallow ifup,
>>> ifdown and who knows how many other executables, just because you
>>> don't want to call execl? No matter where the code of ifup lives, it
>>> requires root privileges to do anything relevant, so having it inside
>>> your backend won't avoid having at least one executable with SUID set
>>> (the backend), or launched by init as a daemon (and thus owned by
>>> root).
>>>
>>> I still don't see why on Earth you want to "avoid having to use execl
>>> to call ifup". Esecuting an existing command-line program into a child
>>> is exactly what the wide majority of all the ncurses and GUIs
>>> frontends (not just for network config) actually do. This is the
>>> normal way of doing things.
>>>
>>> "Incorporating code from other programs" == "bloating your little
>>> software".
>>
>> Which has implications for maintainability. Your code won't benefit
>> from bug fixes made to ifup.
>>
>> Except, of course, the ifup code is a thin command-language wrapper
>> around a shared library or system call that does the actual work; then
>> just calling the shared library or system call is OK.
>>
>>
>> -- hendrik
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>
>