netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: load balance ipv6 connections from a local process

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]

Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:37:28 +0200
From:	"Julius Volz" <juliusv@...gle.com>
To:	"Brian Haley" <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	"Simon Horman" <horms@...ge.net.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Malcolm Turnbull" <malcolm@...dbalancer.org>,
	"Siim Põder" <siim@...rad-teel.net>,
	"Vince Busam" <vbusam@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: load balance ipv6 connections from a local process

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
> Julius Volz wrote:
>>>
>>> -out:
>>> -       __ip_vs_conn_put(cp);
>>> -
>>> -       return verdict;
>>> +       snet.in6 = iph->saddr;
>>
>> I've always been told to use ipv6_addr_copy() for this. I'm not sure
>> what the problem with the direct struct assignment is though... would
>> be nice if someone could explain.
>
> Because an in6_addr is a union of 4 u32's, which won't all be copied in a
> struct assignment.  That's the way I've always understood it.

No, they _do_ all get copied and the result seems correct. There must
be another reason...

Julius

-- 
Julius Volz - Corporate Operations - SysOps

Google Switzerland GmbH - Identification No.: CH-020.4.028.116-1
--
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