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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:43:06 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: swhiteho@...hat.com Cc: tgraf@...g.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pcaulfie@...hat.com Subject: Re: DECnet routing rule resolution From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists