netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Implement delete for BPF LPM trie

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, 19 Sep 2017 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     kraigatgoog@...il.com
Cc:     daniel@...que.org, ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Implement delete for BPF LPM trie

From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org> wrote:
>> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400
>>>
>>>> This was previously left as a TODO.  Add the implementation and
>>>> extend the test to cover it.
>>>
>>> Series applied, thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM
>> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for
>> that before pushing your tree?
> 
> I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion.  It's
> really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to
> handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the
> implementation details yet).

Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the
series was OK.  All that was asked for were simplifications and/or
optimization which could be done via follow-up patches.

It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real
revert.

I hope that won't be necessary.