netdev - Re: [Patch net-next v3 9/9] selinux: use generic union inet

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: <52137CFF.70601@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:28:15 -0700
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	james.l.morris@...cle.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	eparis@...isplace.org, pmoore@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v3 9/9] selinux: use generic union inet_addr

On 8/20/2013 6:01 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 14:42 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Well, they certainly don't appear to add any value on their own.
>> I also generally oppose doing clever things with data structures. 
> If you want to implement same thing for 5+ times,

Those 5+ implementations are already there, and already work.
A 6th implementation to replace known working code is just churn
unless it provides some additional value. Making the code "better"
does not itself add value. 

>  yes, it has no value
> for you. Enjoy the following code in current tree:
>
> union nf_inet_addr;
> union sctp_addr;
> union vxlan_addr; (in my VXLAN IPv6 patches, search email archives)
> struct br_mdb_entry::addr;
> union inet_addr; (in netpoll.h)
>
> And may I tell you the last three are all from me? ;-)

I do use and enjoy all of these implementations! Thank you
for the fine implementations. In the end, if you're maintaining
the code it's your call. I question change that does not have
an obvious purpose because statistically every 10th change has
a bug.

Now that I know what the change is for I am fine with it. I
like seeing reasons up front.

>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
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