netdev - Re: [net-next RFC 0/4] SO

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]

Date:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:43:19 +0000
From:	Gilberto Bertin <gilberto.bertin@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC 0/4] SO_BINDTOSUBNET


> On 7 Mar 2016, at 17:49, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> 
>> That said, do you believe it could be an option to maybe have both these
>> options? I think that the ability to run BPF in the listening path is
>> really interesting, but it's probably an overkill for the bind-to-subnet
>> use case.
>> 
> 
> Maybe. It will be quite common server configuration with IPv6 to
> assign each server its own /64 prefix(es). From that POV I suppose
> there is some value in having SO_BINDTOSUBNET.

Good, in this case I will submit again this RFC when the net-next window
will open for the 4.6 release, so that we can gather more comments and
decide what to do.

Thank you,
  Gilberto