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: <20101020192350.GR8781@llucax.com.ar> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:23:50 -0300 From: Leandro Lucarella <luca@...cax.com.ar> To: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net" <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.35/TIPC 2.0 ABI breaking changes Leandro Lucarella, el 20 de octubre a las 15:28 me escribiste: > Jon Maloy, el 20 de octubre a las 14:10 me escribiste: > > <...> > > > > > > > > Remember, permitting both is a superset of the current one > > > (NBO only) > > > > so it is fully backwards compatible. We break absolutly nothing by > > > > permitting this. > > > > > > > Thats effectively reverting both our patches though, isn't it > > > (not that I'm disagreeing with it, just looking for > > > clarification). If we revert my patch and reintroduce the > > > htohl mechanism which tracks endianess, we might as well > > > revert the TIPC_SUB_SERVICE flag as well, yeah? > > > > Absolutely. I think it was a mistake to change that value. > > But I don't think we need to reintroduce the htohl(). That > > was just one way of doing it. If I understood your suggestion > > from yesterday correctly you converted the whole message within > > one if()clause, without any htohl(). I have have no problem with > > that approach. > > There is a difference between both solutions, the htohl() version > tracked the need for swap as a struct subscription member (which was > used when sending back events). Neils patch doesn't do that tracking. > I don't really know the implications of this, but maybe it would be > a wise idea to stay in the safe side and revert both patches for now. BTW, I tried 2.6.37 reverting both offending patches and everything seems to work well. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vivimos en una época muy contemporánea, Don Inodoro... -- Mendieta -- 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