netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] net_sched: mirred: remove action when the target device is gone

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:	Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:50:44 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] net_sched: mirred: remove action when the
 target device is gone

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/13 16:11, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> NOTHING you talked about here is relevant to the policy or
>> mechanism you talked previously. Just correctness.
>>
>
> It is about _correct policy_
> If you have a packets going:
> ->A-->B-->C-->D-->E
>
> That is the policy (decided by someone/thing in user space).
> A to E are mechanisms.

Apparently you have a different definition of "policy" and "mechanism"
with me, probably with others too...

I assume you mean actions here, since we don't care about others
in this thread.

> If something goes wrong with mechanism D, you dont go deleting
> D because it is affecting other things in the graph. You have
> no clue what it would affect - and if you try to build that in
> it is not cheap for no good reason.

Since they are chained by a singly or doubly linked list in
non-shared case, where are "other things in the graph"?

Please do explain how can they be in a graph in non-shared
case, it is not obvious to me at all.

> You let the thing/person who set it know and do the deletion.
>
> You compared it to something going wrong with A(when A is netdev)
> and how we delete everything underneath. They are not the same,
> in that case, we know precisely that is the begining of the graph
> and we can unreference everything underneath.

Nope, I only want to remove A from the chain by list_del() for non-shared
case.

>
> Does that make more sense?
>

Nope, you continue to mention graph, but don't explain why there is
a graph in non-shared case. Nor I think you use "policy" or "mechanism"
correctly. :)

Jamal, please don't be abstract, just talk about actions. We DO NOT
care about others in this thread.
--
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