netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] [IPV6] COMPAT: Fix SSM applications on 64bit kernels.

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: <OF3EEB81D7.922E9337-ON88257435.00729F2D-88257435.00734E23@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:59:28 -0700
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] [IPV6] COMPAT: Fix SSM applications on 64bit kernels.

A general comment that I have is that you're making changes
that affect the non-compat case. Which, of course, is why I prefer
the approach I took in the patch I sent. The non-compat code is
completely untouched, and only the translations needed for
compatibility are done. This reduces (really, nearly removes)
the possibility of breaking existing working code, while only
risking bugs in apps that currently don't work at all.

Aside from that, I think the approach is just simpler, easier to
understand and review, and a  smaller patch. I can't
tell trivially by looking at your patch if errno is set the same on
all non-compat cases as it was before your patch, for example.
It may be, but I know it is in my patch without having to test all
those cases, because those are unchanged by the compat
code I added.

                                        +-DLS

--
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