netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: remove the unnecessary statement in find

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:45:37 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: remove the unnecessary statement in find_match()

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 02:02:11PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
> 于 2013年10月31日 12:22, David Miller 写道:
> > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:11:57 +0100
> > 
> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:08:37PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> >>> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:39:26 +0800
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> After reading the function rt6_check_neigh(), we can
> >>>> know that the RT6_NUD_FAIL_SOFT can be returned only
> >>>> when the IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF) is false.
> >>>> so in function find_match(), there is no need to execute
> >>>> the statement !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> >>>
> >>> Applied to net-next, thanks.
> >>>
> >>> CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF is another good candidate for Kconfig
> >>> removal.  I know we've had several bugs that only apply when
> >>> this option is on vs. off.  We're maintaining two different
> >>> code paths, for really no good reason.
> >>
> >> I agree and actually thought about that yesterday. Do you think a sysctl
> >> is a good option?
> > 
> > Every distribution ships with the Kconfig option on, and no sysctl
> > exists currently to control it.
> > 
> > So I'd say it's not necessary at all, or at the very least let's have
> > someone come forward with a real rather than theoretical use case for
> > such a feature before adding it.
> > 
> > Actually, if RFC 4191 has the usual language like "there SHOULD be
> > an administrative mechanism to disable blah blah blah" I could
> > be convinced to add it now.  Can someone take a look?
> 
> It seems that there is no such an administrative mechanism in RFC 4191.
> 
> By the way, if the sysctl is used, we are still maintaining two different
> code paths, isn't it? so i think David's idea is good.

Makes life easier, no objections from me.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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