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

Message-ID: <55A41A52.8040906@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:06:42 -0300
From:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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

On 13-07-2015 16:58, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

Okay. I'll try to minimize that code duplication then.

Thanks
Marcelo

--
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