netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX

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: <20170421.121217.1268145592512455181.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jhs@...atatu.com
Cc:     eric.dumazet@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net sched actions: dump more than
 TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:01:07 -0400

> On 17-04-21 11:55 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On 17-04-21 11:38 AM, David Miller wrote:
> 
>>> If a user says "enable X" and it just gets simply ignored by older
>>> kernels, that can't work properly.  What if "enable X" is something
>>> like "turn on encryption"?  Are you OK with the user getting no
>>> feedback that their stuff is not going to be encrypted?
>>>
>>
>> For this specific use case:
>> Dont they need a newer kernel which supports "enable encryption"?
> 
> Also: What happens to this user space app when it encounters an
> older kernel?
> 
> Using rejection as a capability discovery wont work I think.

Yes for existing attributes we are stuck in the mud because of how
we've handled things in the past.  I'm not saying we should change
behavior for existing attributes.

I'm talking about any newly added attribute from here on out, and
that we need to require checks for them.

Thanks.