netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ipv6: sr: fix IPv6 initialization failure without lwtunnels

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: <20161115.101857.1945116546500210861.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:18:57 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     david.lebrun@...ouvain.be
Cc:     roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ipv6: sr: fix IPv6 initialization failure
 without lwtunnels

From: David Lebrun <david.lebrun@...ouvain.be>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:17:20 +0100

> On 11/14/2016 03:22 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> I prefer option b). most LWTUNNEL encaps are done this way.
>> 
>> seg6 and seg6_iptunnel is new segment routing code and can be under
>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6 which depends on CONFIG_LWTUNNEL and CONFIG_IPV6.
>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_HMAC could then depend on CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6
> 
> Will do that, thanks

This is good for the time being.

Although I'd like to entertain the idea of making LWTUNNEL
unconditionally built and considered a fundamental piece of
networking infrastructure just like net/core/dst.c