netdev - RE: [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED

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:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:02:57 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Xin Long' <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add
 SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE sockopt

From: Xin Long
> Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
> 
> This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc7829: "Exposing
> the Potentially Failed Path State", by which users can change
> pf_expose per sock and asoc.

If I read these patches correctly the default for this sockopt in 'enabled'.
Doesn't this mean that old application binaries will receive notifications
that they aren't expecting?

I'd have thought that applications would be required to enable it.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)