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:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:22:44 -0200
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>
To:	Gerrit Renker <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] [PATCH v2] [CCID3]: Interface CCID3 code with
	newer Loss Intervals Database

Em Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:42:38AM +0000, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> | When interfacing we must make sure that ccid3 tfrc_lh_slab is created
> | and then tfrc_li_cachep is not needed. I'm doing this while keeping
> | the structure of the patches, i.e. one introducing, the other removing.
> | But we need to create tfrc_lh_slab if we want the tree to be bisectable.
> | 
> | I'm doing this and keeping your Signed-off-line, please holler if you
> | disagree for some reason.
> If you are just shifting and reordering then that is fine with me. But
> it seems you mean a different patch since in this one there is no slab
> initialisation. 

This time around I'm not doing any reordering, just trying to use your
patches as is, but adding this patch as-is produces a kernel that will
crash, no?

> The loss history and the RX/TX packet history slabs are all created in
> tfrc.c using the three different __init routines of the dccp_tfrc_lib.

Yes, the init routines are called and in turn they create the slab
caches, but up to the patch "[PATCH 8/8] [PATCH v2] [CCID3]: Interface
CCID3 code with newer Loss Intervals Database" the new li slab is not
being created, no? See what I'm talking?

- Arnaldo
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