Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)

Replying to David S. Miller:
> That's my position too and I'm pretty much going to ignore any
> request to change this behavior.

Accorind to this article, some people count this as security issue:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/427622

Well ... someone with Cisco support contract can open a TAC case on
this ?

-- 
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key
 This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Rick Jones <[email protected]>
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: tuning for large files in xfs
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Remove readv/writev methods and use aio_read/aio_write instead
Previous by thread: Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
Next by thread: [PATCH] orinoco: possible null pointer dereference in orinoco_rx_monitor()
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]