[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The IPsec kernel problem



also sprach Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> [2003.10.03.1016 +0200]:
> > I cannot disable IPsec at runtime as I cannot replace the IP stack
> > at runtime, and it modifies the IP stack. Moreover, you state the
> 
> The IPSEC stack does nothing unless you specify policies through
> PFKEY or NETLINK.  In other words, it is disabled by default.

From glancing over the patch, it *also* replaces parts of the non
IPsec i.e. standard IP stack. Maybe it provides the same
functionality to the end user. It does *not* provide the same
functionality to the developer.

> > reason why you should not put IPsec in the kernel right there:
> > "The presence of the patch should not prevent me from doing
> > something that I would otherwise be able to do." Well, it does.
> 
> It does not prevent you from doing anything with the *kernel
> image* that you otherwise would be able to do.
> 
> You argument fails even with the kernel source as the patch is
> easily reversed.

and if reversed, you loose the entire point of kernel-patch-debian
-- security backports.

Herbert, are you actually pretending to argue, or will simply slam
every argument brought against you with a "fails this check, fails
that check"?

-- 
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

Attachment: pgpMkNn7NyfiT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: