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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20190401.133100.763241999253935922.davem@davemloft.net> 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...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists