netdev - Re: MULTIPLE_TABLES and IP_ADVANCED

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: <20151124.140636.1407559679495101433.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:06:36 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	geert@...ux-m68k.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MULTIPLE_TABLES and IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:38:13 +0100

> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:10 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:03:18 +0100
>>
>>> Is there a reason why IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES and
>>> IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES depend on IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER, while their
>>> IPV6 counterparts don't?
>>
>> It's just another thing that happened to diverge over time, there is
>> no real reason.
> 
> So should the dependencies be added for IPv6, or removed for IPv4?

I think either change risks breaking something for someone, for
extremely questionable gains, so leaving things as they are is
probably the most prudent thing to do.
--
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