linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] vsock: MSG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <85f50bf8-8b92-c0f8-d994-24b86be9de5b@sberdevices.ru>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 15:28:13 +0300
From:   Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
CC:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
        <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@...rdevices.ru>, <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY flag support



On 26.05.2023 15:23, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:36:17PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26.05.2023 13:30, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:56:42PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22.05.2023 10:39, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patchset is unstable with SOCK_SEQPACKET. I'll fix it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for let us know!
>>>
>>> I'm thinking if we should start split this series in two, because it
>>> becomes too big.
>>>
>>> But let keep this for RFC, we can decide later. An idea is to send
>>> the first 7 patches with a preparation series, and the next ones with a
>>> second series.
>>
>> Hello, ok! So i'll split patchset in the following way:
>> 1) Patches which adds new fields/flags and checks. But all of this is not used,
>>   as it is preparation.
>> 2) Second part starts to use it and also carries tests.
> 
> As long as they're RFCs, maybe you can keep them together if they're
> related, possibly specifying in the cover letter where you'd like to
> split them. When we agree that we are in good shape, we can split it.

Sure! I'll add this information in cover letter of v4

Thanks, Arseniy

> > Thanks,
> Stefano
>