netdev - RE: What was the reason for 2.6.22 SMP kernels to change how sendmsg is called?

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <B1F576FE19C55C43B8D2E31F061B50C04E60B2@exchange.comtrol.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:00:02 -0600
From:	"Kevin Wilson" <Kevin.Wilson@...trol.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: What was the reason for 2.6.22 SMP kernels to change how sendmsg is called?

I see your point but it just so happens it is a GPL'd driver, as is all of our Linux code we produce for our hardware. Granted it is out of tree, and after you saw it you would want it to stay that way. However, I would have sent you the whole thing if that is a pre-req to cordial exchanges on this list.

Nonetheless, a somewhat recent change in your tree, that I could not pinpoint on my own, caused the driver to stop functioning properly. So after much searching in git/google/sources with no luck, I decided to ask for a little assistance, maybe just a hint as to where the culprit may be in the tree so I could investigate for myself. For SNGs I tried the method that now works but I am still at a loss as to (can't find) what changes in the tree caused it to fail.

Does that now clarify/help matters any?

Regards,

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 15:18
To: Kevin Wilson
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What was the reason for 2.6.22 SMP kernels to change how
sendmsg is called?

From: "Kevin Wilson" <Kevin.Wilson@...trol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:54:31 -0600

> The 2nd method fixes the kernel oops I reported. Thanks to all those
> that assisted me (0) with my first post to this list (see below)
> ... uh, oh yeah, did I mention that number would tally up to ZERO
> people. ;-}

Because the knowledgable folks here have zero interest in helping
people with out-of-tree-likely-binary-only modules, because in such
cases you have our code but we don't have your's.

Have a nice day.
--
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