linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv6: fix rtnl locking in setsockopt for anycast and multicast

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]

Message-ID: <CAHA+R7NSu=wjGsmLapjM4Mbk_oeZ07P+yN0b982otvjoW2jodA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:23:37 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	trinity@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv6: fix rtnl locking in setsockopt for anycast
 and multicast

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>
> What games are you playing? You know how patches are processed by David
> and I even let him the choice by pointing out a problem in your patch so
> that you could an update and send v2.

I assume David goes over all the discussion before applying any patch.
So in the original discussion, obviously I disagree with your point on RCU,
and sent my own version.

I do understand David may miss something due to massive emails in
this list, but you make no point here nor I understand your broken English
"let him the choice...".

>
> I really feel miffed about your behavior!
>

I SEE. Please do redirect my email to your /dev/null. Thanks a lot!

> Anyway, I saw the hunk adding the return -ENODEV and didn't see any
> problems with it. Sure it might be better if it would gone into a
> separate patch. Can you elaborate what problems you see?
>

Yes, it should be not in this patch at the very very least.
--
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/