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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 16:19:27 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: tom@...bertland.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 0/9] ipv6: Extension header infrastructure From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:55:39 -0800 > This patchset improves the IPv6 extension header infrastructure > to make extension headers more usable and scalable. > > - Reorganize extension header files to separate out common > API components > - Create common TLV handler that will can be used in other use > cases (e.g. segment routing TLVs, UDP options) > - Allow registration of TLV handlers > - Elaborate on the TLV tables to include more characteristics > - Add a netlink interface to set TLV parameters (such as > alignment requirements, authorization to send, etc.) > - Enhance validation of TLVs being sent. Validation is strict > (unless overridden by admin) following that sending clause > of the robustness principle > - Allow non-privileged users to set Hop-by-Hop and Destination > Options if authorized by the admin I see no explanation as to why we want to do this, nor why any of this is desirable at all or at any level. So as in the past, I will keep pushing back on this series because I see no real well defined, reasonable, impetus for it. Sorry.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists