netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/04]: VLAN vs. packet socket inconsistencies

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:48:38 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/04]: VLAN vs. packet socket inconsistencies

David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
>
>   
>> From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
>> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:30:04 +0200
>>
>>     
>>> That sounds good. Userspace needs to know about the size of
>>> the tpacket_hdr before setting the ring parameters so it can
>>> size the ring frames appropriately for the largest packet size
>>> it wants to receive. This means the offset field in the
>>> tpacket_hdr is redundant, so I'll just add a getsockopt
>>> option for getting the size. Unless we want to be able to
>>> include only a partial tpacket_hdr, but I don't think that
>>> would be very useful.
>>>       
>> Ok, in that case using a getsockopt() to query the size sounds great.
>>     
>
> BTW, what you might want to do is say that if the user
> makes the new getsockopt() size query, he understands
> and wants the new style tpacket_hdr layout.
>   

I'm torn between "nice hack" and "doesn't belong there".
I'll see how I feel about this once I get to that point :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html