Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #3]
- From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:36:57 +0000
Ok quickly going over the code that hasn't made the list
- recvmsg not supporting MSG_TRUNC is rather weird and really ought to be
fixed one day as its useful to find out the sizeof message pending when
combined with MSG_PEEK
- RXRPC_MIN_SECURITY_LEVEL reads into rx->min_sec_level and then if it is
invalid reports an error but doesn't restore the valid level
- Why does rxrpc_writable always return 0 ?
- rxrpc_process_soft_ACKs doesn't itself limit and check acns->nAcks is
always below RXRPC_MAXACKS, as this is a stakc variable it ought to be
paranoid about it. I think its ok from the caller check but its very hard
to prove...
It needs a lot more eyes/review due to the complexity and network
exposure though - not your fault, whoever designed RXRPC's 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #3]
- From: David Howells
- [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #3]
- Prev by Date: Question Regarding The Radeon Framebuffer
- Next by Date: Re: BSOD
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 2/5] AF_RXRPC: Move generic skbuff stuff from XFRM code to generic code [try #3]
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #3]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
