| 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: <AANLkTin0mNkfaDvs3ZrEhxY27kdmZLh8ikKNpc-MXC44@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:22:23 +0100 From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, greearb@...delatech.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ip rule and/or route problem in 2.6.37-rc5+ On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 18:22, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote: >> Tom, please acknowledge this regression you've added to the tree. > > Acknowledged. Looking at it. > > Tom This is definitely a regression, and the fault is definitely with this code. Indeed, the code is fundamentally flawed. I've been trying to come up with a fix, but I'm beginning to think we're barking up the wrong tree here. Currently my preference is leaning towards using setsockopt(SOL_IP, IP_TRANSPARENT) [possibly with some sk->transparent tcp inheritence fixes] instead. I definitely want this functionality though, since it's wonderfully useful for testing (and for serving as well). Could we please revert this ( 4465b469008bc03b98a1b8df4e9ae501b6c69d4b ) and make sure the revert makes it into 2.6.37? We definitely don't want to ship 2.6.37 with this patch in its current state. -- Maciej -- 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