[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502039A8.7080807@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:39:52 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: ebiederm@...ssion.com, jan.ariyasu@...il.com,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jan.ariyasu@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] SCTP: Enable netns
On 08/06/2012 04:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:50:46 -0700
>
>> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Eric
>>>
>>> Associations are looked up by ports, but then verifyed by addresses.
>>> Also, associations belong to sockets and simply validating the socket
>>> namespace should be sufficient.
>>
>> True. Your set of patches isn't quite as likely to malfunction as it
>> looked at first glance. It requires address reuse which happens accross
>> namespaces but not too frequently.
>>
>> As for validating the socket namespace I agree that is the fix and my
>> patchset winds up doing it.
>
> FWIW I much prefer Eric's patch set, it was so significantly easier to
> read and validate than Jan's.
>
Yes, but Eric's patch set is missing a very significant piece which is
per-net sctp tunables/globals. I think adding that piece in will
introduce some of the complexities of Jan's patch.
Also, I noticed that Eric went the route of placing sctp netns into
struct net, but Jan used a generic pointer. Which one should be used?
Is there some guidance?
-vlad
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists