From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Grimm Subject: Re: [Lksctp-developers] Re: SCTP config 2.5.70(-bk) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 16:07:08 -0500 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3EDD0DFC.4080806@us.ibm.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030602094232.00aeda18@pop.t-online.de> <20030603130308.GC27168@fs.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Margit Schubert-While , lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Adrian Bunk Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Adrian, Sorry for a bit of delay... We are away at an SCTP Interoperability event. Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:53:04AM +0200, Margit Schubert-While wrote: > > >>CONFIG_IPV6_SCTP__ is always being set to "y" even though >>not selected (CONFIG_IPV6 not set) > > > First, this doesn't do any harm since CONFIG_IPV6_SCTP__ alone doensn't > result in anything getting compiled. > > But besides, it seems a bit broken. > > From net/sctp/Kconfig: > > <-- snip --> > > ... > > config IPV6_SCTP__ > tristate > default y if IPV6=n > default IPV6 if IPV6 > > config IP_SCTP > tristate "The SCTP Protocol (EXPERIMENTAL)" > depends on IPV6_SCTP__ > ... > > <-- snip --> > > > Semantically equivalent is the following for IPV6_SCTP__: > > config IPV6_SCTP__ > tristate > default y if IPV6=n || IPV6=y > default m if IPV6=m > > > If it was intended to disallow a static IP_SCTP with a modular IPV6 it > doesn't work: It's perfectly allowed to set IPV6=n and IP_SCTP=y and > later compile and install a modular IPV6 for the same kernel. > Are you sure? I vaguely remember one of the network structs having #ifdef'd fields for v6. Consequently, if one compiles first without, but the tries later compiles/loads ipv6... bad things happen as the kernel has a different concept of what the sock is. > > Could someone from the SCTP developers comment on the intentions behind > IPV6_SCTP__ ? > Yes. The intent was to at least discourage a configuration that will segfault. Thanks, jon > > >>Margit > > > cu > Adrian >