netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] firewire net: IPv6 support (RFC3146).

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130112184234.313f8283@stein>
Date:	Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:42:34 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	stephan.gatzka@...il.com
Cc:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] firewire net: IPv6 support (RFC3146).

On Jan 12 Stephan Gatzka wrote:
> 
> > Another thing:  As far as I understand, the current code assumes that
> > peers will use the same unicast_FIFO for IPv4 unicast as for IPv6
> > unicast.  This is not necessarily true.  Either firewire-net needs to
> > maintain two lists of peers (one for IPv4, another for IPv6), or it needs
> > to maintain two unicast_FIFOs per peer.
> >
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out. I would go for two unicast_Fifos per peer.

Indeed.  Plus, if we look up an IPv6 peer whose IPv6 unicast_FIFO is as
yet unkown but whose IPv4 unicast_FIFO is already known, we could
optimistically use the latter until we learn the former.  And vice versa.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-= ---= -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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