Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*PPP\-over\-L2TP\s+kernel\s+support\,\s+patch\s+for\s+review\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Nakamura <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:55:44 +0100
Attached is a PPP-over-L2TP driver for review. The patch is against vanilla 2.6.8.1. It was originally developed for 2.4 and forwardported to 2.6 so please look for typical 2.4-to-2.6 porting bugs. T
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00141.html (8,573 bytes)

2. PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:59:16 +0100
Attached this time... sorry. Attached is a PPP-over-L2TP driver for review. The patch is against vanilla 2.6.8.1. It was originally developed for 2.4 and forwardported to 2.6 so please look for typic
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00142.html (8,934 bytes)

3. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Buckingham <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:56:57 -0700
Only two major comments: 1) Uses own linked list implementations. Please use linux/list.h interfaces for this. 2) Does this: struct sockaddr_pppox { sa_family_t sa_family; /* address family, AF_PPPOX
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00190.html (9,071 bytes)

4. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:32:41 +1000
By my calculations, sizeof(struct pppoe_addr) = 2 + ETH_ALEN + IFNAMSIZ = 2 + 6 + 16 = 24 bytes sizeof(struct pppol2tp_addr) = sizeof(int) + sizeof(sockaddr_in) + 4 * 2 = 4 + 16 + 8 = 28 + possibly p
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00200.html (10,802 bytes)

5. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: adi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:17:41 +1000
Any existing user-space binary that has struct sockaddr_pppox in it will be broken by your change. Perhaps you can create a new sockaddr type? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Em
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00203.html (9,774 bytes)

6. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:38:28 +1000
But within a single binary, it knows how big the structure was at the time it was compiled and has allocated the appropriate space. It also was compiled with a particular version of PX_MAX_PROTO so i
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00204.html (11,473 bytes)

7. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: tijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:46:30 +1000
It can break because people often initialise the size of the address by doing sizeof(struct sockaddr_pppox). For example, you'll see exactly this breakage in pppoe_getname in drivers/net/pppoe.c. Now
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00205.html (10,313 bytes)

8. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:04:55 +1000
/me looks... *BLINK* Ugh, getname takes a length argument but it's write only. So, hypothetically, if I get passed a file descriptor through a UNIX domain socket and do a getname on it, there is no w
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00206.html (11,006 bytes)

9. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: tijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:04:22 +1000
Nope. The code in net/socket.c ensures that the buffer does not overflow. Please call them sockaddr_pppoe and sockaddr_pppol2tp. The union doesn't change the size or alignemnt. Cheers, -- Visit Opens
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00207.html (10,548 bytes)

10. PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: James Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:55:44 +0100
Attached is a PPP-over-L2TP driver for review. The patch is against vanilla 2.6.8.1. It was originally developed for 2.4 and forwardported to 2.6 so please look for typical 2.4-to-2.6 porting bugs. T
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01597.html (8,588 bytes)

11. PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: James Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:59:16 +0100
Attached this time... sorry. Attached is a PPP-over-L2TP driver for review. The patch is against vanilla 2.6.8.1. It was originally developed for 2.4 and forwardported to 2.6 so please look for typic
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01598.html (8,949 bytes)

12. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:56:57 -0700
Only two major comments: 1) Uses own linked list implementations. Please use linux/list.h interfaces for this. 2) Does this: struct sockaddr_pppox { sa_family_t sa_family; /* address family, AF_PPPOX
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01646.html (9,135 bytes)

13. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:32:41 +1000
By my calculations, sizeof(struct pppoe_addr) = 2 + ETH_ALEN + IFNAMSIZ = 2 + 6 + 16 = 24 bytes sizeof(struct pppol2tp_addr) = sizeof(int) + sizeof(sockaddr_in) + 4 * 2 = 4 + 16 + 8 = 28 + possibly p
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01656.html (10,923 bytes)

14. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:17:41 +1000
Any existing user-space binary that has struct sockaddr_pppox in it will be broken by your change. Perhaps you can create a new sockaddr type? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Em
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01659.html (9,849 bytes)

15. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:38:28 +1000
But within a single binary, it knows how big the structure was at the time it was compiled and has allocated the appropriate space. It also was compiled with a particular version of PX_MAX_PROTO so i
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01660.html (11,568 bytes)

16. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:46:30 +1000
It can break because people often initialise the size of the address by doing sizeof(struct sockaddr_pppox). For example, you'll see exactly this breakage in pppoe_getname in drivers/net/pppoe.c. Now
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01661.html (10,473 bytes)

17. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:04:55 +1000
/me looks... *BLINK* Ugh, getname takes a length argument but it's write only. So, hypothetically, if I get passed a file descriptor through a UNIX domain socket and do a getname on it, there is no w
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01662.html (11,166 bytes)

18. Re: PPP-over-L2TP kernel support, patch for review (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:04:22 +1000
Nope. The code in net/socket.c ensures that the buffer does not overflow. Please call them sockaddr_pppoe and sockaddr_pppol2tp. The union doesn't change the size or alignemnt. Cheers, -- Visit Opens
/archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01663.html (10,768 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu