Searched hist:"5 d6baef9" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/ |
| H A D | gss_krb5_unseal.c | 5d6baef9 Wed Oct 09 14:59:29 CDT 2013 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> gss_krb5: document that we ignore sequence number
A couple times recently somebody has noticed that we're ignoring a
sequence number here and wondered whether there's a bug.
In fact, there's not. Thanks to Andy Adamson for pointing out a useful
explanation in rfc 2203. Add comments citing that rfc, and remove
"seqnum" to prevent static checkers complaining about unused variables.
Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
5d6baef9 Wed Oct 09 14:59:29 CDT 2013 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> gss_krb5: document that we ignore sequence number
A couple times recently somebody has noticed that we're ignoring a
sequence number here and wondered whether there's a bug.
In fact, there's not. Thanks to Andy Adamson for pointing out a useful
explanation in rfc 2203. Add comments citing that rfc, and remove
"seqnum" to prevent static checkers complaining about unused variables.
Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | gss_krb5_wrap.c | 5d6baef9 Wed Oct 09 14:59:29 CDT 2013 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> gss_krb5: document that we ignore sequence number
A couple times recently somebody has noticed that we're ignoring a
sequence number here and wondered whether there's a bug.
In fact, there's not. Thanks to Andy Adamson for pointing out a useful
explanation in rfc 2203. Add comments citing that rfc, and remove
"seqnum" to prevent static checkers complaining about unused variables.
Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
5d6baef9 Wed Oct 09 14:59:29 CDT 2013 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> gss_krb5: document that we ignore sequence number
A couple times recently somebody has noticed that we're ignoring a
sequence number here and wondered whether there's a bug.
In fact, there's not. Thanks to Andy Adamson for pointing out a useful
explanation in rfc 2203. Add comments citing that rfc, and remove
"seqnum" to prevent static checkers complaining about unused variables.
Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
|