netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next 2/6] net_sched: introduce tcf_hash

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, 6 Sep 2016 15:34:29 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 2/6] net_sched: introduce tcf_hash_replace()

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 16-09-02 01:57 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  include/net/act_api.h |  2 ++
>>  net/sched/act_api.c   | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/act_api.h b/include/net/act_api.h
>> index 82f3c91..a374bab 100644
>> --- a/include/net/act_api.h
>
>
>>
>> +void tcf_hash_replace(struct tc_action_net *tn, struct tc_action **old,
>> +                     struct tc_action *new, int bind)
>> +{
>> +       struct tcf_hashinfo *hinfo = tn->hinfo;
>> +       unsigned int h = tcf_hash(new->tcfa_index, hinfo->hmask);
>> +
>
>
> WWhy do you need to recreate the index?
> Old index was fine since this is just a replacement..

A new index is possible created by tcf_hash_create(), but later
overwritten by tcf_hash_copy(). I know this is a bit ugly, so
feel free to suggest any better API here.


>
> The rest of the patches seem fine - will let Eric comment on the
> mirred.
>
> Note: I am going to still push forward with skbmod action and I think
> so should the new tunnel action code i.e we make them independent.
> I'd like to switch to this when we think it is stable.

You don't have to rebase or change, I will take care of it because they
will probably be merged before this patchset. At least I can hold on
this for a while to let that happen. ;)

Thanks.