netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/6] vxlan: Only bind to sockets with correct extensions enabled

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, 7 Jan 2015 14:45:54 -0800
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] vxlan: Only bind to sockets with correct extensions enabled

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> wrote:
> A VXLAN net_device looking for an appropriate socket may only
> consider a socket which has the exact set of extensions enabled.
> If none can be found, a new socket must be created.

Maybe it's just the phrasing of the commit message but won't the new
socket that needs to be created immediately fail? I think this is
really just checking that you don't try to instantiate two different
sets of extensions on the same UDP port - it's not like this is going
to somehow create a new socket and they will be able to coexist.
--
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