linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Updates to nfsroot documentation

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]

Message-ID: <20071204064012.GA31154@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:40:13 -0500
From:	Amos Waterland <apw@...ibm.com>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updates to nfsroot documentation

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 01:24:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:43:45PM -0500, Amos Waterland wrote:
> > The difference between ip=off and ip=::::::off has been a cause of much
> > confusion.  Document how each behaves, and do not contradict ourselves
> > by saying that "off" is the default when in fact "any" is the default
> > and is descibed as being so lower in the file.
> 
> Is that really how it works? If so it sounds a bit silly to me.
> Surely it would be desirable for ip=off and ip=::::::off to
> do the same thing. Or am I missing the point?

Yes, that is how it works.  Pretty confusing, so I figured I'd better
send in a patch to document it.

In the ip=::::::off case, the code in ip_auto_config() sees that
ic_enable is asserted but that ic_myaddr is NONE and proceeds to do
autoconfiguration.

I'd welcome comments from people on whether we should change how it
works instead of just document it.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/