netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/47] Netfilter/IPVS updates for net-next

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, 30 Mar 2018 11:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     pablo@...filter.org
Cc:     netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/47] Netfilter/IPVS updates for net-next

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:36:42 +0200

> The following patchset contains Netfilter/IPVS updates for your net-next
> tree. This batch comes with more input sanitization for xtables to
> address bug reports from fuzzers, preparation works to the flowtable
> infrastructure and assorted updates. In no particular order, they are:

Pulled, but I have to ask you not to handle things this way next time.

The other week when I pushed back on your pull request, I asked for
some explanations about the flow table situation.

When I was satisfied with the explanation I explicitly asked you to
resend _exactly_ the original pull request.

I asked you to do this because I didn't want to see a huge pull
request like this one show up later.

And this is exactly what happend. :-/

Please, next time I ask you to resend a pull request I have a very
good reason for doing so, so please do it.

Thanks.