[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170504141548.Horde.VjUEZJdTZiLesC8PBMAO8QM@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 14:15:48 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-ipv4] question about arguments position
Quoting Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>:
> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 14:00 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Regarding the code comments, what about the following patch:
> []
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_diag.c b/net/ipv4/inet_diag.c
> []
>> @@ -389,6 +389,12 @@ static int sk_diag_fill(struct sock *sk, struct
>> sk_buff *skb,
>> nlmsg_flags, unlh, net_admin);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Ignore the position of the arguments req->id.idiag_dport and
>> + * req->id.idiag_sport in both calls to inet_lookup() and inet6_lookup()
>> + * functions, once this is a locked in behavior exposed to user space.
>> + * Changing this will break things for people.
>> + */
>> struct sock *inet_diag_find_one_icsk(struct net *net,
>> struct inet_hashinfo *hashinfo,
>> const struct inet_diag_req_v2 *req)
>>
>
> Seems sensible. Thanks.
Should I resend it in a full and proper format or it can taken from here?
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Powered by blists - more mailing lists