[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPwn2JQy9J85fxT9pEh1Wfm0Qafs7rJGm+Y96BVNwne+1phCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:29:12 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
吉藤英明 <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert "net/ipv6: add sysctl option accept_ra_min_hop_limit"
Hi Sabrina,
2015-09-10 17:19 GMT+08:00 Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>:
> Hello,
>
> 2015-09-10, 10:54:38 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> > Can we still modify the behavior of this sysctl? It's already been in
>> > Linus's tree for a while, but if we can, I would rather restrict the
>> > values we let the user write to accept_ra_min_hop_limit, as anything
>> > outside [0..255] does not really make sense.
>>
>> Yes, so the checked if (in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit < 256 &&
>> ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit) make sure we only update the value between
>> [1..255].
>
> I was thinking of returning -EINVAL when the user tries to set it to
> 300, using proc_dointvec_minmax.
I'm OK with this. But we can also set cnf.hop_limit to 300, if add check for
accept_ra_min_hop_limit, we'd better check all hop_limit values.
Thanks
Hangbin
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists