netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next tree

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: <519C785B.6070104@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 May 2013 09:48:43 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, nschichan@...ebox.fr
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next tree

On 05/22/2013 09:19 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:58 -0700
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700
>>>
>>>> Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions
>>>> which I presently have.  Please refresh, retest and resend when
>>>> convenient?  It'll need to be against linux-next, which is where the
>>>> conflicting (vfree/module_free) changes have occurred.
>>>
>>> How about working against net-next and submitting your patches to netdev
>>> just like the rest of the world?
>>
>> Well that's probably practical.  But the patchset is a seccomp
>> enhancement for (at present) ARM.  Not exactly net stuff, or anything
>> which netdev readers are likely to spend a lot of time testing and
>> reviewing.
>
> The seccomp BPF bits we reviewed and were interested in completely, because
> we're going to have to support JIT'ing all of that stuff on every cpu and
> we're interested how it fits into the existing BPF codes and infrastructure.

+1

seccomp is wired with BPF (JITs in arch/*/net/ + net/core/filter.c) and that's
part of networking, so they should go through netdev. This makes it also way
easier for review.
--
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