linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: linux/skbuff.h: combine SKB

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: <53e73344-3a3a-4a11-9914-8490efa1a3b9@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:08:56 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: linux/skbuff.h: combine SKB_EXTENSIONS +
 KCOV handling

On 11/16/20 7:30 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:31:21 +0100 Florian Westphal wrote:
>>>> @@ -4151,12 +4150,11 @@ enum skb_ext_id {
>>>>   #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP)
>>>>   	SKB_EXT_MPTCP,
>>>>   #endif
>>>> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KCOV)
>>>>   	SKB_EXT_KCOV_HANDLE,
>>>> -#endif  
>>>
>>> I don't think we should remove this #ifdef: the number of extensions are
>>> currently limited to 8, we might not want to always have KCOV there even if
>>> we don't want it. I think adding items in this enum only when needed was the
>>> intension of Florian (+cc) when creating these SKB extensions.
>>> Also, this will increase a tiny bit some structures, see "struct skb_ext()".  
>>
>> Yes, I would also prefer to retrain the ifdef.
>>
>> Another reason was to make sure that any skb_ext_add(..., MY_EXT) gives
>> a compile error if the extension is not enabled.
> 
> Oh well, sorry for taking you down the wrong path Randy!

No problem.
So we are back to v2, right?
Do I need to resend that one?

thanks.
-- 
~Randy