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  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]
Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: DECnet routing rule resolution

From: Steven Whitehouse <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100

> One of the effects of the recent tidy up of the DECnet routing rules
> code is that we are no longer able to see the difference between reading
> a rule of type FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE returning -ENETUNREACH and simply
> running out of rules to look at, which also returns the same thing.
> The DECnet code used to return -ESRCH if it ran out of rules in which
> case the test in dn_route.c (which resulted in DECnet falling back to
> endnode routing in the -ESRCH case) no longer works.
> So there seems to be several options to try and solve this: one is to
> change the error return for running out of rules in
> fib_rules.c:fib_rules_lookup() to something else (but then that has a
> knock on effect in the ipv4 code). Another is to add the "not found"
> error return as a parameter in the struct fib_rules_ops so that both
> protocols can have their preferred error return. Both solutions seem a
> bit messy, so I thought I'd ask for some guidance on this before writing
> a patch,

I think we should be able to return -ESRCH (a more sensible error
value if you ask me) across the board.

Thomas what do you think?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists