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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:28:12 -0400 From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing policy->walk.dead On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 21:11 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > I disagree. A flush event is a signal that someone has sent a > flush command. Sorry - I respectfully disagree. > In any case we've had this semantics for years > and I haven't heard a good reason why this should be changed. It generates unnecessary noise and it is a deviation like i mentioned. > > This is a consistent definition of the semantics everywhere tables > > are flushed (not just in Linux).. > > Please give specific examples in the kernel. Something i can do safely right now without messing my connection; Issue iproute commands in one window, observe events in another -sudo ip route add 192.168.11.100 dev eth0 table 15 generates an event -sudo ip route flush table 15 generates an event -sudo ip route flush table 15 No event But pick anything else in the other netlink knowledgeable subsystem and youd see similar behavior. If there was an app depending on this behavior - thats a separate reason (but thats not the arguement you are making). cheers, jamal -- 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