netdev - Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

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:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:47:37 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to use network namespaces, you have to adapt your scripts.
>>
>> Nobody claimed network namespaces were totally transparent.
>>
>
> I see. I am going back to an old thread here where Linus says that the
> #1 rule is:
>
> ""We don't regress user space"
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/16/565
>
> Breaking scripts seems to me to fall into the category of regressing
> userspace. Or may be we can treat these sysctls more softly since they
> are not strictly speaking linux ABIs.

As Eric said, it has been like this since day 0, why you still think
we break something? It is you who misunderstands the interface
not us who break your script.
--
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