netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:53:12 -0700
From:	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:00:26 -0700
>
>> First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
>> share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
>> refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
>> code with vxlan module.
>> Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.
>
> I'm mostly fine with this patch series and I assume Stephen will
> eventually take it in via his vxlan tree.
>
> However I do have one issue with patch #1 that I'd like to ask you to
> consider.
>
> You're doing two seperate things there.  First, you're abstracting out
> the handler bits at one level of indirection via "struct
> vxlan_handler" Second, you're adjusting how the headers are handled
> in the handler paths.
>
> I understand why you're doing the second part, to accomodate multiple
> handlers properly.
>
> But I think it would be much better to do this in two stages.
>
> The first stage does the "struct vxlan_handler" abstraction and then
> the second stage reworks how packet headers get adjusted.
>
> I'm suggesting this for the purposes of bisectability.  I believe that
> the header handling adjustments are the part that are going to be the
> most dangerous for regressions.  So it would be best if we could
> exactly pinpoint that exact change as causing problems in the future.
>
> When you split this up, in the first patch, enforce only one handler
> at a time.  You can remove this restriction as part of the second
> patch.
>
> I frankly think that this will make these changes easier to review and
> audit as well.
>
> How does that sound?

I agree, I will send updated patches.
--
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