netdev - Re: [net-ipv4] question about arguments position

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: <1493925433.31950.0.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 May 2017 12:17:13 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.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

On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 14:15 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 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?

If you want it applied, it should be resent as a full patch
with your sign-off.