netdev - Re: [RFC, PATCH 2.6.29.2] Ethernet V2.0 Configuration Testing Protocol, revision 20090428

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

Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:09:26 +0930
From:	Mark Smith 
	<lnx-netdev@...22607b6285f9c5d5ea31ea9d8a7ac.nosense.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 2.6.29.2] Ethernet V2.0 Configuration Testing
 Protocol, revision 20090428

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Mark Smith <lnx-netdev@...22607b6285f9c5d5ea31ea9d8a7ac.nosense.org>
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:06:44 +0930
> 
> > In my opinion, the primary reason why these sorts of testing functions
> > have been put in kernels rather than user space is to ensure ubiquity.
> 
> By this argument we should have a BGP routing daemon in the kernel
> too.
> 

BGP is not for testing basic connectivity. It's for carrying Internet
scale routing information. I work with it daily. What benefit would
there be in making it ubiquitous to all end nodes? I can't see one, and
I've never argued that complex protocols that aren't performance
critical, and that aren't useful on every device should be in the
kernel. I've very specifically *only* argued that every Ethernet
interface would benefit from having an Ethernet specific testing
protocol always being available. The authors of the 1982 Ethernet V2.0
spec thought was valuable so they mandated it, the implementers of
Cisco IOS thought was valuable, as did the Berkely Unix 4.2 and Ultrix
authors, and the IEEE think the functionality is valuable because
they've gone and developed Ethernet OAM protocols. 

Is there any chance you're going to answer what I thought were
legitimate questions? I'd much rather find out why things are the way
they are, or aren't the way they appear, but I also don't want to waste
your's or my time.

> But we don't.
> 
> BTW, your email address is rediculious.
> 

It works, so what's wrong with it? Nobody else has complained about me
using these types of email addresses on public mailing lists. I can
throw it away if I get too much spam, pointing the MX record of the
subdomain to 127.0.0.1 or something similar.
--
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