netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in addrconf

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: <20160928.074901.901607987499248966.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     zenczykowski@...il.com
Cc:     maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ek@...gle.com,
        lorenzo@...gle.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in
 addrconf_sysctl

From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:16:45 -0700

> From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>

I was about to ask you to submit this patch alongside an actual
addition of a proc_dointvec_minmax user to the table.

But upon second checking there is one, indirectly via
addrconf_sysctl_mtu().

I should never have to search and figure things out like that.  It
should be obvious or explained in the commit message.

You must explain in detail what the dependency is, why you
have to make this change, how you made it, and why you made
it that way.

Especially in this case, your empty commit message is really
not appropriate.

Thanks.