netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Replace send_unreach with icmp_send

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Replace send_unreach with icmp_send
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:48:53 +0100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050315204006.GB22349@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20050307103536.GB7137@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050308102741.GA23468@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314102614.GA9610@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314105313.GA21001@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050314111002.GA29156@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315091904.GA6256@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315095837.GA7130@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315100522.GA7275@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050315102450.0f3f1618.davem@davemloft.net> <42373142.6090902@trash.net> <20050315204006.GB22349@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1
Herbert Xu wrote:
Well it isn't terribly difficult to create a new version of icmp_send
that does xrlim conditionally.  icmp_send/ipt_REJECT can then call that
function.

The main reason I'm looking at getting rid of send_unreach is because
having two implementations of the same code often leads to bugs.  In
fact, as it is there are multiple IPsec-related bugs in the ipt_REJECT
code.

Ok. I can't see any different reason to keep it, so go ahead. I'll take care of the xrlim stuff later.

Regards
Patrick

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>