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 22:01:52 +0200
From:	Thomas Graf <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: DECnet routing rule resolution

* David Miller <> 2007-03-29 11:43
> 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?

I agree.
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