netdev - Re: RAW netfilter - "advanced netfilter setting" or not?

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: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1111232325500.27025@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:32:23 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RAW netfilter - "advanced netfilter setting" or not?


On Wednesday 2011-11-23 23:02, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, NETFILTER_ADVANCED should be changed to only control
>> the visibility of all suboptions, i.e. I suggest that "default m if
>> NETFILTER_ADVANCED=n" be done for all non-deprecated modules.
>> (Similar to how CONFIG_EXPERT works.)
>
>No thank you. That makes the whole option pointless. [...]
>The whole point of NETFILTER_ADVANCED is for people like me who
>actually want a fairly *minimal* kernel config, and probably one that
>has no modules.

Right, but how would you decide what will be enabled/disabled by
default? It seems unlikely you will be adding a patch (like Dave's)
everytime a default distro installation throws certain errors once
you run your own kernel configs.
--
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