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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b1f76269-a810-9034-eb52-282516b15a43@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: inet: diag: expose the socket mark to
 privileged processes.

On 9/13/16 10:00 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> 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?
> 

I realize you meant DaveM, but this one has been accepted. It's your other 2 that are marked RFC by you and in patchwork.