netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 0/3] l2tp: remove unused fields in struct l2tp

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:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:15:21 +0200
From:   Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 0/3] l2tp: remove unused fields in struct
 l2tp_parm

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 07:57:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:26:28 +0200
> Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Several fields of struct l2tp_parm are handled by create_session() but
> > can't actually be set by user.
> > Most of these fields can also be set by get_response(), but are ignored
> > afterwards.
> > 
> > Since these fields can't have any visible effect, let's just remove
> > them.
> > 
> > Guillaume Nault (3):
> >   l2tp: drop data_seq
> >   l2tp: drop mtu
> >   l2tp: drop lns_mode
> > 
> >  ip/ipl2tp.c | 13 -------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> These make sense for iproute2 next
These patches haven't been rejected in patchwork. Does that mean that
David A. will pick them up? Or should I repost to iproute2-next anyway?