netdev - Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT2 net-next 1/2] IPv6 routing, NLM_F_* flag support: warn if NEWROUTE lacks of both CREATE and REPLACE flags

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]

Message-Id: <20111114.020617.136865443034405914.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:17 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	matti.vaittinen@....com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT2 net-next 1/2] IPv6 routing, NLM_F_* flag
 support: warn if NEWROUTE lacks of both CREATE and REPLACE flags

These changes still has problems.

These warning messages are poorly formatted.  Some of them don't even indicate
that ipv6 is involved by printing out an appropriate subsystem prefix.

And frankly, they are ugly, and not the kind of thing I want the networking
code spitting out.

Consolidate these messages into something that has good form and will indicate,
consistently, where the trouble is occuring.

And I still submit that perhaps these ugly messages are an indicate of how
bad an idea these changes are in the first place.  We've lived with the
current behavior for 15 years or more, nobody cared.  What changed?
What can't you do with the current setup?  And why can't you do it without
requiring operations that work currently to change semantics?
--
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