netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:42:06 -0700
From:   R Parameswaran <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
To:     Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kleptog@...na.org, James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        Nachi Prachanda <nprachan@...cade.com>,
        Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietric@...cade.com>,
        Chas Williams III <ciwillia@...cade.com>,
        Luca Boccassi <lboccass@...cade.com>,
        Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@...cade.com>,
        Bill Hong <bhong@...cade.com>,
        Jan Blunck <jblunck@...cade.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket
 needs a lock

Hi Guillaume,

Please see inline:

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:14:37PM -0700, R. Parameswaran wrote:
>>
>> The MTU overhead calculation in L2TP device set-up
>> merged via commit b784e7ebfce8cfb16c6f95e14e8532d0768ab7ff
>> needs to be adjusted to lock the tunnel socket while
>> referencing the sub-data structures to derive the
>> socket's IP overhead.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tested-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
>
> BTW, you don't need to add "v1" for the first version of a patch.
> There's also no need for numbering pathes when there's only one in the
> series. And we normally prefix the commit message with "<subsystem>: ".
> For this patch, your subject would look like " [PATCH net-next] l2tp: ...".
>
> Also, you could have added a "Reported-by:" tag (I don't really mind
> in this case, but that's good practice).

Thanks for correcting these (and for testing the changes) and sorry
for the Reported-by omission. I'll respin by tonight
with these, per reply to Dave.

regards,

Ramkumar