Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964974AbWHWPWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:22:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964980AbWHWPWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:22:10 -0400 Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.5]:39911 "EHLO mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964974AbWHWPWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:22:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@d.namei To: gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk cc: davem@davemloft.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, kaber@coreworks.de, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions In-Reply-To: <200608231603.08240@strip-the-willow> Message-ID: References: <200608231150.42039@strip-the-willow> <200608231603.08240@strip-the-willow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1699 Lines: 42 On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > | Other protocols & network components call panic() if they fail during boot > | initialization. Not sure if this is a great thing, but it raises the > | issue of whether udp-lite should remain consistent here. > > The behaviour is consistent (modulo loglevel) with inet_init() > of net/ipv4/af_inet.c: Some things will panic there, just deeper in the call chain. > >From that I could not deduct a rule what would happen if UDP-Lite failed > to register. If control had reached that above point, it means that all > other protocols have already successfully registered -- if then UDP-Lite > could not register and called a panic(), it would abort the remainder of the > stack. Other functions can also panic on failure after this, e.g. tcp_init(). I think ideally it'd be best if components did not panic during initialization unless it _really_ meant that the kernel should not continue executing. Although, it's not entirely clear how to determine this, e.g. perhaps the system should panic if netfilter initialization failed, as it might mean that the systems comes up without a firewall. But how do we know precisely which components are being used for security critical purposes? It seems like a signifcant overhaul of existing code, so probably best just to leave yours as-is (which I suspect is the correct behavior anyway). - James -- James Morris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/