netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: enable IPv6 iff IPv4

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:   Mon, 01 Apr 2019 13:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     zenczykowski@...il.com
Cc:     maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: enable IPv6 iff IPv4

From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Date: Mon,  1 Apr 2019 12:44:58 -0700

> From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
> 
> IPv6 is 20 years old and IPv4 has run out of IP addresses
> and is deprecated.
> 
> It is time to make IPv6 a first class citizen.
> 
> As such we remove the ability to compile IPv6 as a module,
> and IPv4 support now implies IPv6 support.
> 
> This has the nice benefit of allowing upcoming code simplification:
> all IPv6 module support can be removed, and we'll be able to merge
> IPv6 socket state into the base IPv4 socket state...
> 
> At some point we should be able to reverse things and make IPv4
> the optional protocol and possibly even make an ipv4.ko.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>

Things are modular because we don't unilaterally make decisions for
people on this level.

This is why I'm very much not too motivated to integrate changes like
this, even though I understand the motivation and simplifications this
would enable.

I mean, who the heck are we to tell someone that because they make
some tiny device meant for an isolated ipv4 environment that they
_MUST_ have ipv6 also built into their kernels?

Seriously...