netdev - Re: [Patch net] ipv6: restore the behavior of ipv6_sock_ac

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: <CAHA+R7N+WGNV5yTQ_hVbn-ez4Ar9395HzOGUU4tG9uLHqFPndA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:41:28 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] ipv6: restore the behavior of ipv6_sock_ac_drop()

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> Hi Cong,
>
> Just doing normal review, really no bad intentions, just technical
> follow-up. ;)

I believe you are not supposed to do it since definitely you
said you don't want to work with me. You said it, not me,
I respect any of your choice. :)

>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014, at 23:33, Cong Wang wrote:
>> It is possible that the interface is already gone after joining
>> the list of anycast on this interface as we don't hold a refcount
>> for the device, in this case we are safe to ignore the error.
>
> anycast code actually inserts routes into the routing table and holds a
> reference on the interface while that route is active.

But route could be deleted.

>
>> What's more important, for API compatibility we should not
>> change this behavior for applications even if it were correct.
>
> IMHO adding new error codes never breaks existing applications because
> there is no way they can explore all possible errno variables. Also we
> already report ENODEV from multicast setsockopts. So I think it would be
> ok to leave it as is, but I have no strong opinion on that and it would
> be ok by me if the patch got accepted (maybe update the changelog).
>

Again, too late to change, the code has been there since the beginning
of git history. You should have a strong argument if you want to change it,
otherwise restore old behavior, that is all. Obviously you don't even mention
this when you accept that patch.
--
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