linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3, kernel version 3.2.1] Source mode for macvlan interface

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]

Message-ID: <1327472968.14373.41.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:29:28 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Štefan Gula <steweg@...t.sk>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v3, kernel version 3.2.1] Source mode for macvlan
 interface

Le mercredi 25 janvier 2012 à 07:22 +0100, Štefan Gula a écrit :

> It's a result of need to have enough space allocated for sk_buff
> struct before called macvlan_fill_info. I know that it looks somehow
> messy. BUt before the macvlan_fill_info is called there is only one
> procedure calcit. The problem of calcit is that it doesn't have access
> to struct net_device *dev int it. It has only access to struct sk_buff
> *skb, so from that point it cannot be called directly (whole parsing
> code had to be copied there to get the *dev a calling
> if_nlmsg_size(dev) from it. On the other hand calcit returns global
> static value of min_ifinfo_dump_size and that is shared among all
> interfaces and modifying like this do the job properly. There was
> another different way and that was creating and registering a whole
> new PF_MACLVAN netlink group resulting in copying almost 95% percent
> of given code and modified it somehow to do the same.
> 
> If it should be result of separate commitment than ok, but it was
> result apparently of need only for use of macvlan that's why it was
> included in my patch.
> 
> So how should I proceed with it?

A separate patch for this part, as David said ?

The intent is to catch people attention on a particular point, instead
of unnoticed code in some huge unrelated patch.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/