netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: sr: update the struct ipv6_sr

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: <20171114153148.7f43787fb8cc9fe7a7dcb4fc@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:31:48 +0100
From:   Ahmed Abdelsalam <amsalam20@...il.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <david.lebrun@...ouvain.be>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: sr: update the struct ipv6_sr_hdr

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:14:01 +0000
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> wrote:

> On 14/11/17 12:37, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Ahmed Abdelsalam <amsalam20@...il.com>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:37:01 +0100
> > 
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seg6.h b/include/uapi/linux/seg6.h
> >> index 2f6fb0d..3f4b3ab 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/seg6.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seg6.h
> >> @@ -26,9 +26,9 @@ struct ipv6_sr_hdr {
> >>  	__u8	hdrlen;
> >>  	__u8	type;
> >>  	__u8	segments_left;
> >> -	__u8	first_segment;
> >> +	__u8	last_entry;
> > 
> > This is user ABI and cannot be changed.
> > 
> > Sorry, folks should have considered these issues when the SR
> > changes were submitted.  This field must keep the name 'first_segment'
> > forever.
> 
> Surely renaming struct fields only changes the API, not the ABI?
> Binaries compiled against the old struct definition will still behave the
>  same (AFAICT the patch doesn't change how these fields are used), while
>  sources being recompiled (so they care about the name change) can be
>  changed.

Yes Exactly,
What I meant by the patch is to change just the field name, but the logic still the same.  
Also it will not make sense to have the field name differnent from the draft.

-- 
Ahmed