linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PPPoL2TP: Add more code snippets

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: <20230418115409.aqsqi6pa4s4nhwgs@begin>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:54:09 +0200
From:   Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
To:     Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc:     James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>, tparkin@...alix.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, corbet@....net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPPoL2TP: Add more code snippets

Guillaume Nault, le mar. 18 avril 2023 13:25:38 +0200, a ecrit:
> As I said in my previous reply, a simple L2TP example that goes until PPP
> channel and unit creation is fine. But any more advanced use of the PPP
> API should be documented in the PPP documentation.

When it's really advanced, yes. But here it's just about tunnel
bridging, which is a very common L2TP thing to do.

> I mean, these files document the API of their corresponding modules,
> their scope should be limitted to that (the PPP and L2TP layers are
> really different).

I wouldn't call

+        ret = ioctl(ppp_chan_fd, PPPIOCBRIDGECHAN, &chindx2);
+        close(ppp_chan_fd);
+        if (ret < 0)
+                return -errno;

documentation...

> That shouldn't preclude anyone from describing how to combine L2TP, PPP
> and others to cover more advanced use cases. It's just better done in a
> different file.

A more complete example, yes. I don't plan on taking time to do it.

Samuel