netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: inet_is_local_reserved

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:   Sun, 24 Nov 2019 01:24:39 -0800
From:   Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: inet_is_local_reserved_port() should return bool
 not int

> > Maciej, please repost this series with a proper introduction "[PATCH 0/3]" posting
> > so that I know what this series does at a high level, how it is doing it, and why
> > it is doing it that way.
>
> That's because the first two patches were standalone refactors,
> and only the third - one line - patch had a dependency on the 2nd.

So I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion
you'd probably not be willing to accept the final one line patch (and
either way it should also be updating the sysctl docs) because it is
after all a change of behaviour for userspace (even if I imagine very
rarely utilized).

I'm still not sure what exactly to do about it.  Perhaps the easiest
thing is to carry it around as an Android common kernel only patch.
I'm not sure.
I'm kind of loathe to add another sysctl... but perhaps?

So for now I'll go with resubmitting just the refactor, which I *hope*
won't be controversial??