netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.

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: <48503BBD.6000307@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:55:25 -0700
From:	Vince Busam <vbusam@...gle.com>
To:	Julius Volz <juliusv@...gle.com>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.

Julius Volz wrote:
> Ah, but the set/get-sockopt calls also pass a size argument, which is
> the size of the passed structs. If the kernel and userspace struct
> sizes don't match, it is treated as an error. Is this in case
> different compilers pad the structs differently, even if the IPVS
> version stays the same?

So we could disable the size checks of the passed structs, or key on it to 
determine if the older ABI was used, keeping a list of the structs that 
had different sizes around, but that sounds like a gross hack which would 
get worse if any other fields are added.  It would also mean new userspace 
binaries with the new fields wouldn't work with older kernels, is that a 
problem?  Is this better than the alternatives of breaking the ABI, or 
duplicating code into a separate ABI?

Vince
--
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