netdev - Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

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: <200701080858.15434@strip-the-willow>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:58:15 +0000
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

|  > Since the old definition is not used in the way "before(x, y) && !before(y, x)", but rather in the
|  > fashion "before(x, y)" or "after(y, x)", the main advantage of the new definition is that it makes
|  > this type of use a safe case. 
|  
|  This is not true because
|  
|  	if (before(x, y))
|  		goto drop;
|  
|  means that you're effectively using it as !before(x, y).  In other words,
|  the change is good if our code read
|  
|  	if (before(x, y))
|  		process_packet();
|  
That is correct - whether it is indeed safe(r) to use needs to be evaluated in the individual context.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html