netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/9] mlxsw: implement port mirroring offload

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 Jul 2016 11:33:41 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, yotamg@...lanox.com,
	eladr@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com, nogahf@...lanox.com,
	ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/9] mlxsw: implement port mirroring offload

Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:24:10AM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>On 16-07-21 05:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:00:33AM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>>>On 16-07-21 04:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>>>>
>[..]
>>
>>>infrastructure. If answer is yes, thencould we have used
>>>a classifier like u32 here?
>>>i.e something like:
>>>tc filter add dev eth25 xxxx protocol all \
>>>u32 match u32 0 0 \
>>>action mirred ...
>>
>>That could be used. But I believe it is nicer to have explicit match-all
>>classifier for this case. That puts nice limit to what could be matched.
>>
>
>Iam indifferent. If you are planning to use u32 for ACL then it would
>make sense to support span + ACL with the same classifier.
>
>>Could you point to that? checkpatch.pl does not say anything and I also
>>don't see anything.
>>
>
>scripts/Lindent (but you need to be a little careful with it)
>Generally the coding style guide in Documentation is sufficient.

As I said, I don't see any issue. Could you please reply to that
specific patch on a place where you see the issue?

Thanks.