| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100601091004.7885cd8c@nehalam> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:10:04 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com Subject: Re: net: replace hooks in __netif_receive_skb (v4) On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:41:07 +0200 Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> wrote: > Actually, I'm not happy about this (reducing to only one hook) and for two > reasons: > > 1) I think it's a good behaviour to "mask" one handler by another in case device > is for example used for macvlan and then added to bridge. Because when it's > again removed from the bridge, the original functionality is restored. And also, > this would be consistent with the current behaviour. > > 2) I would imagine a situation, when multiple handers are needed in cascade. > Actually I'm working on a virtual device draft which uses two handlers, although > in corner situation. > > Regards, > Jirka I don't like it because: 1) Adding macvlan to bridge makes no sense. The bridge is already in promicious mode. 2) I don't like to see functionality added when it is not needed. 3) The extra overhead of traversing list causes more cache activity in extreme hot path. Wait and add the multiple handlers when your code is included. -- http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/early.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists