netdev - Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:21:13 +0100
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked
	version of Tomasz's patch set

| | What happens if application is compiled with dccp_packet_info containing only 
| | one field (priority) and kernel containing two fields (for example priority 
| | and later added expiry time)? Wouldn't that implementation make extensions to 
| | dccp_packet_info impossible?
| Had not looked at it from this point of view. So you are suggesting
| 
| 	if (msg->msg_control != NULL && msg->msg_controllen >= sizeof(*dcp))
| 		dcp = (struct dccp_packet_info *)msg->msg_control;
| 
| instead? Agreed, point #1 to change in the patch.
| 
No, the above is nonsense. If the application uses an earlier version of the API, then
it needs to be recompiled, there is no way it could pretend to have an adequate size.

So my take is that still the '==' is correct. But maybe this is a known problem?

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

--
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