From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: setsockopt congestion control autoload Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:22:53 +0400 Message-ID: <20061026052253.GA10188@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20061025110843.0cbd18a7@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:14253 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423410AbWJZFYA (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:24:00 -0400 To: Stephen Hemminger Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061025110843.0cbd18a7@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:08:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@osdl.org) wrote: > If user asks for a congestion control type with setsockopt() then it > may be available as a module not included in the kernel already. > It should be autoloaded if needed. This is done already when > the default selection is change with sysctl, but not when application > requests via sysctl. > > Only reservation is are there any bad security implications from this? What if system is badly configured, so it is possible to load malicious module by kernel? -- Evgeniy Polyakov