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: <20080425.233131.247778262.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dlstevens@...ibm.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] [IPV6] COMPAT: Fix SSM applications on 64bit
 kernels.

From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:39 -0700

> I considered passing the the real setsockopt function as an argument
> to what is now compat_mc_setsockopt() before putting the direct calls in.
> By doing that, we can only get in there with a v6 setsockopt when v6 is
> loaded, since the calls to it are from the corresponding 
> compat_setsockopt.
> Is that too ugly?
> 
>         Could also make these  return pointers to the new koptval and 
> koptlen,
> which is really the only thing we need outside the 
> compat_ipXX_setsockopt()'s.

If you're going to use callbacks, and I'd be also asking you to
guard this code with CONFIG_IPV6 as appropriate, why not simply
put it into the ipv6 socket option handling code?

I really see no value putting this in some generic location
if we have to deal with those issues, by adding callbacks and
ifdef'ery.
--
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