netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sctp: SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF return socket pointer for kernel users

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: <20150713.125852.915617134904684689.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Cc:	nhorman@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, vyasevich@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sctp: SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF return socket pointer
 for kernel users

From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:05:27 -0300

> On 13-07-2015 15:59, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 06:39:11 -0400
>>
>>> Initially Marcelo had created duplicate code paths, one to return an
>>> fd, one to return a file struct.  If you would rather go in that
>>> direction, I'm sure he can propose it again, but that seems less
>>> correct to me than this solution.
>>
>> That's much better.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. Is the new option better or the
> history/description?

I mean that adding an explicit function for these internal kernel
users to call is better.
--
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