netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: inet: diag: expose the socket mark to privileged processes.

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]

Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3q71ap3TQDyeuKFsZ4LTt6yEBh2pAZ5=FMnCd9UmyuGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:00:09 +0900
From:   Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: inet: diag: expose the socket mark to
 privileged processes.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com> wrote:
> RFC patch sent out as http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/667892/ . This
> achieves a fair bit of simplification with no or negligible
> performance impact, because there was a lot of redundancy in the
> parameters that were passed in.

David, any thoughts on that patch? I submitted it as RFC because I
wasn't sure what you wanted. Should I have sent it as non-RFC instead?