netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] docs: networking: packet_mmap: don't mention PACKET

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, 20 Dec 2020 09:52:55 +0200
From:   Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Ulisses Alonso Camaró <uaca@...mni.uv.es>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] docs: networking: packet_mmap: don't mention
 PACKET_MMAP

Hi Jakub,

On Thu, Dec 17 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:51:17 +0200 Baruch Siach wrote:
>> Before commit 889b8f964f2f ("packet: Kill CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP.") there
>> used to be a CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP config symbol that depended on
>> CONFIG_PACKET. The text still refers to PACKET_MMAP as the name of this
>> feature, implying that it can be disabled. Another naming variant is
>> "Packet MMAP".
>> 
>> Use "PACKET mmap()" everywhere to unify the terminology. Rephrase the
>> text the implied mmap() feature disable option.
>
> Should we maybe say AF_PACKET mmap() ?

I thought that PACKET is better because it is the minimal change, and
because of the reference to CONFIG_PACKET. Should we rename
CONFIG_PACKET to CONFIG_AF_PACKET as well?

What do you think?

baruch

-- 
                                                     ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch@...s.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -