netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup

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:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:53:55 +0200
From:   Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To:     "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kleptog@...na.org, jchapman@...alix.com,
        davem@...hat.com, nprachan@...cade.com, rshearma@...cade.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, sdietric@...cade.com,
        ciwillia@...cade.com, lboccass@...cade.com, dfawcus@...cade.com,
        bhong@...cade.com, jblunck@...cade.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] L2TP device MTU setup - tunnel socket
 needs a lock

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:14:37PM -0700, R. Parameswaran wrote:
> 
> The MTU overhead calculation in L2TP device set-up
> merged via commit b784e7ebfce8cfb16c6f95e14e8532d0768ab7ff
> needs to be adjusted to lock the tunnel socket while
> referencing the sub-data structures to derive the
> socket's IP overhead.

Thanks.

Tested-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>

BTW, you don't need to add "v1" for the first version of a patch.
There's also no need for numbering pathes when there's only one in the
series. And we normally prefix the commit message with "<subsystem>: ".
For this patch, your subject would look like " [PATCH net-next] l2tp: ...".

Also, you could have added a "Reported-by:" tag (I don't really mind
in this case, but that's good practice).