netdev - Re: [RFC v2] netfilter: xt_condition: add condition target

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:	Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:32:06 +0300
From:	Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
To:	ext Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc:	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] netfilter: xt_condition: add condition target

On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 13:11 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-07-20 13:04, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >
> >Yes, I made this patch on top of the one you have sent earlier for
> >upstream inclusion.  There were some comments from Patrick to that one
> >and, as I said in my email yesterday, I'll rebase the target patches
> >once the original one is included upstream.
> 
> The original one won't be - that is, basically you will be making the
> initial upstream submission.

Oh, ok.  I thought you had already submitted it to upstream in Apr 21.
As I understood from that thread, you were going to make the necessary
changes and resubmit:

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de> writes:
> On Thursday 2010-04-22 13:14, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
> > This looks better, thanks. A few remaining questions about things
> > I missed previously:
> 
> Will deal with it shortly.

But I never saw a follow up to that email (or at least I couldn't find
it in any archives).  Then a few days ago I asked you if you were going
to resend and you answered:

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 13:20 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2010-07-16 13:10, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >Are you planning to resend this patch with the changes Patrick
> >suggested?
> 
> I can try. 

So I assumed you would resubmit it for upstream inclusion.  I probably
misunderstood something in the way then ;)

> However, you are right; fabricating two patches is a good idea and
> is in fact what I advertise too (xt_TEE discussion about specifying
> oif..) - avoiding a singular huge patch is a best practice.

Sure, I also agree that patches should be small and incremental.
Especially since the xt_condition already exists elsewhere, I think it's
best to get it included upstream as is and then start improving it with
subsequent patches.

> Just be sure to have condition plus its 32-bit upgrade patch merged at
> the same time.

I think the best idea will be to send a patchset with the three patches
at once (original xt_condition, plus the target patch, plus the 32-bit
patch).

> >Do you want me to take a look at Patrick's comments and resubmit the
> >patch you've sent with the changes Patrick asked for?
> 
> Yes. Not obeying His Highness's wishes is a death nail for a module ;-)

Heh! And myself, as a newbie, certainly don't want to do that. ;)

-- 
Cheers,
Luca.

--
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