netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/6] A step closer to RFC 6458 compliancy

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:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:42:07 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Vlad Yasevich' <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	'Geir Ola Vaagland' <geirola@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/6] A step closer to RFC 6458 compliancy

From: Vlad Yasevich
> On 06/17/2014 11:36 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Of Geir Ola Vaagland
> >> These patches are part of my master thesis project. I have been searching for discrepancies between
> >> the socket API specificiation in RFC 6458 and the current Linux SCTP implementation. The following
> >> patches are my humble attempts at getting somewhat closer to compliancy.
> >
> > I've just been reading RFC 6458 - HTF did it get past the editors and
> > then published in its current form?
> > Lots of the structures have implied padding.
...
> I've argued the padding issue, but the editor stance is that it's implementation
> dependent.

It wouldn't be as bad if the RFC said that the structure contained the
fields that followed (as is typical of the posix definitions),
but instead it gives a definition of the structure.

That isn't implementation friendly at all.

	David



--
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