Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, James Morris wrote:

> 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.

Actually, I guess it's up to userspace to figure this out.



- James
-- 
James Morris
<[email protected]>
-
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:
- [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions
  - From: [email protected]
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions
  - From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions
  - From: [email protected]
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions
  - From: James Morris <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 7/7] SLIM: documentation
Next by Date: [PATCH] SELinux: 3/3 convert sbsec semaphore to a mutex
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4: UDP-Lite extensions
Next by thread: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] net/ipv4: UDP and generic UDP(-Lite) processing
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]