linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 0/4] net: bridge / ip optimizations for virtual net backends

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: <1392803304.23084.95.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:48:24 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
CC:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 0/4] net: bridge / ip optimizations for
 virtual net backends

On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 11:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> New motivation: removing IPv4 and IPv6 from the backend interfaces can
> save up a lot of boiler plate run time code, triggers from ever taking
> place, and simplifying the backend interaces. If there is no use for
> IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces why do we have them? Note: I have yet to test
> the NAT case.

I think you need to do that test that before you can unequivocally state
that there is no use for IPv4/6 interfaces here.

Ian.

--
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/