netdev - Re: [net PATCH] gro: Allow tunnel stacking in the case of FOU/GUE

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: <20160329.170348.883731618823989561.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tom@...bertland.com
Cc:	aduyck@...antis.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com, jesse@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net PATCH] gro: Allow tunnel stacking in the case of FOU/GUE

From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:51:17 -0700

> No, but I do expect that you support code that is already there. There
> was apparently zero testing done on the original patch and it caused
> one very obvious regression. So how can we have any confidence
> whatsoever that this patch doesn't break other things? Furthermore,
> with all these claims of bugs I still don't see that _anyone_ has
> taken the time to reproduce any issue and show that this patch
> materially fixes any thing. I seriously don't understand how basic
> testing could be such a challenge.
> 
> Anyway, what I expect is moot. It's up to davem to decide what to do
> with this...

You being upset with a lack of testing is one issue, and is
legitimate.

But the fact that we can't support, and never could support, more than
one network header at a time except in a very special case for GRO
is very real.  And you must acknowledge that this was a very shaky
foundation upon which to erect the kinds of things you expect to work.