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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:55:59 +0100 From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com> To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com> Cc: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: > It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way > (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri? What Simon says makes sense to me. ip_flags and tcp_flags sounds like the best solution so far (even better than my original suggestion). Thanks, Jiri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists