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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100328.064012.193708716.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:40:12 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] inetpeer: Support ipv6 addresses. From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:11:12 +0800 > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:53:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> >> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:22:50 +0800 >> >> > My main question is how do we deal with source-address policy >> > routing in a host cache? >> >> We don't, the same like how we don't handle fully specified >> IPSEC policies deciding upon the route. > > I thought we did handle source-address policy routing for PMTU > messages at least. I just checked ip_rt_frag_needed and it does Same for all the other metrics at the TCP level. I guess this is the decision we have to make, what does "host level" metrics mean for us if we decide to move things into the inetpeer cache. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists