netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net, ip6_tunnel: enhance tunnel locate with type check

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]

Message-ID: <CAJ75kXaPqjoSW=WnHzMzSs3Ms+byENzLRdE3UEb+nUXKHbEJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:16:35 +0100
From:   William Dauchy <w.dauchy@...teo.com>
To:     William Dauchy <w.dauchy@...teo.com>
Cc:     Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        NETDEV <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net, ip6_tunnel: enhance tunnel locate with type check

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:31 PM William Dauchy <w.dauchy@...teo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:01 PM Nicolas Dichtel
> <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
> > Can you elaborate? What problem does this solve?
> > Which tree are you targeting? net or net-next?
>
> I was seeing that as a nice to have for coherency between ip6_tunnel
> and ip_tunnel. But we can drop this one if we lack of practical
> example, as I was more concerned about link check in the 1/2 patch.
> It was more for net in my opinion as I considered it not too invasive.

Ok let's drop that one for now as there is no practical example as of
today, I will focus on 1/2 around link check.

Thanks,
-- 
William