netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2] net: split rt

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: <20130723020437.GC30719@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jul 2013 04:04:37 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> Current net name space has only one genid for both IPv4 and IPv6, it has below drawbacks:
> 
> - Add/delete an IPv4 address will invalidate all IPv6 routing table entries.
> - Insert/remove XFRM policy will also invalidate both IPv4/IPv6 routing table entries
>   even when the policy is only applied for one address family.
> 
> Thus, this patch attempt to split one genid for two to cater for IPv4 and IPv6 separately
> in a fine granularity.

For me the approach seems reasonable. We should double-check if this
does not affect v4mapped af_inet6 sockets in any way. I could help to
do the review if there is an agreement that the split is desirable.

Thanks,

  Hannes

--
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