Rick Macklem wrote
in
:
rm> Rick Macklem wrote:
rm> [stuff snipped]
rm> >The AF_LOCAL code was in head for a short period of time before a vnode
lock panic()
rm> >issue was reported and I reverted the patch.
rm> >
rm> >Here is the commit log message for that reversion:
rm> >PR#230752 shows a
Rick Macklem wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>The AF_LOCAL code was in head for a short period of time before a vnode lock
>panic()
>issue was reported and I reverted the patch.
>
>Here is the commit log message for that reversion:
>PR#230752 shows a panic where an nfsd thread tries to do soconnect() on
>t
Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>Rick Macklem wrote:
>> I doubt NFS gets squeezed into such devices and, yes, it is a small amount.
>> Using source line counts via "wc" (ir includes comments, etc):
>> - This will reduce the # of lines by about 6 for a module of about 7700
>> lines
>>which is loaded w
> Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> [stuff snipped]
> I wrote:
> >> So, is this still recommended for blocks of code that only execute for
> >> the version
> >> of IP, but will build for kernels that do not have the particular
> >> "options INET{6}"
> >> in the kernel config?
> >
> >Yes.
> Ok, I'll do it.
Th
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
[stuff snipped]
I wrote:
>> So, is this still recommended for blocks of code that only execute for
>> the version
>> of IP, but will build for kernels that do not have the particular
>> "options INET{6}"
>> in the kernel config?
>
>Yes.
Ok, I'll do it.
>> If it is still recom
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote
in <201902280158.x1s1wi7s053...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>:
fr> >
fr> > I know both of these groups still do exist.
fr> >
fr> > Also every code not compiled in is not an attack surface, where you
fr> > think it?s executed or not.
fr>
fr> This last reason is/was a prevelent
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:11, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer
> > recommended to add
> > #ifdef INET
> > or
> > #ifdef INET6
> > to the kernel sources.
>
> Not sure who said this.
>
> > I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't ne
On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:11, Rick Macklem wrote:
I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer
recommended to add
#ifdef INET
or
#ifdef INET6
to the kernel sources.
Not sure who said this.
I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't necessary to get it to
build makes t
I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer
recommended to add
#ifdef INET
or
#ifdef INET6
to the kernel sources.
I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't necessary to get it to build
makes the
code less readable and, as such, I prefer not to do this.
So, is this
