netdev - Re: ethtool NFC/ntuple API questions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1453317771.3734.68.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:22:51 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ethtool NFC/ntuple API questions

On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 19:12 +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
> Thanks both, it's making more sense now.
> One thing I'm still unclear about: why does struct ethtool_usrip4_spechave
> the ip_ver field?  The struct can't be extended to cover ipv6, because the
> address fields aren't big enough.  So what's it for?

It's also defined to always have the same value and mask!  It's a
design bug.

> Also, would it be appropriate to use struct in6_addr for IPv6 addresses, or
> should I use __be32[4]?

I think for consistency with the IPv4 structures it should be __be32[4].

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
The program is absolutely right; therefore, the computer must be wrong.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)