netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] openvswitch: add erspan version II support

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, 11 Jan 2018 08:34:14 -0800
From:   William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] openvswitch: add erspan version II support

Hi Jiri,
Thanks a lot for the comments.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:35:14 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
>> The existing field must continue to work in the same way as before. It must
>> be accepted and *returned* by the kernel. You may add an additional field
>> but the existing behavior must be 100% preserved, both uABI and uAPI wise.
>
> Another way around this is reverting ceaa001a170e in net.git and
> designing the uAPI properly in net-next. I think that should be the
> preferred way, as ceaa001a170e is clearly wrong since you need to redo
> it after 3 months.

The ceaa001a170e is designed for configuring the ERSPAN v1's fields only,
not thinking about the future needs for more fields in ERSPAN v2.
This patch tries to use the nested attr to handle both v1 and v2.

>
> Not sure when Linus intends to release 4.15 and how much time you have
> for this, though.
>
>  Jiri

I'd also prefer reverting ceaa001a170e since it's more clean but I
also hope to have this feature in 4.15.
How long does reverting take? Am I only able to submit the new patch
after the reverting is merged? Or I can submit revert and this new
patch in one series? I have little experience in reverting, can you
suggest which way is better?

Thanks
William