netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 08/24] IPVS: Make protocol handler functions support IPv6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:55:50 +0200
From:	"Julius Volz" <juliusv@...gle.com>
To:	"Brian Haley" <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, kaber@...sh.net, vbusam@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 08/24] IPVS: Make protocol handler functions support IPv6

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
> Julius Volz wrote:
>>
>> I guessed from the name and other uses that __constant_htons() is just
>> a version of htons() optimized for values that are constant at compile
>> time. Is this right? But htons() is fine too in any case.
>
> I think the __constant one is for initializations.  All I know is that
> someone (Stephen Hemminger?) always points this out in other patchsets, so I
> beat him to it.

He :)

Still, I think my original interpretation was correct? It's always
used with constant values and there are many usages similar to this:

skb->protocol = __constant_htons(ETH_P_802_3);

Someone feel free to correct me.

>>> So why can't you just create one ip_vs_debug_packet_v6() instead of these
>>> ah
>>> and esp ones which are identical?
>>
>> If you look at the original files, the whole ip_vs_proto_ah.c and
>> ip_vs_proto_esp.c are 100% identical except for the protocol names /
>> constants :-/ So I stuck with this pattern for now. Maybe it would
>> make sense to join those two files in a change separate from the v6
>> functionality? There's already a lot of duplication in the existing
>> IPVS that could be removed...
>
> I didn't look too closely, there's a lot of patches! :)  Doing it in a

Yep, it's too big, I know :) And reworking the complete patch into a
sane series didn't really work out that well because everything is so
interdependent. Sometimes it might even be easier to look at the
complete, big patch...

> separate patch is probably a good idea though.

Yeah, should be easy. I'll look at it (if there is any interest).

Julius

-- 
Google Switzerland GmbH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html