netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/5] bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel encapsulation

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: <CACby=pn5=uhR12fv9ebat2Pkk3kzOUhxGVOWp+gn+jxf7ud2rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:58:42 -0600
From:   Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/5] bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel encapsulation

On 2 November 2016 at 07:39, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/core/Makefile b/net/core/Makefile
>> index d6508c2..a675fd3 100644
>> --- a/net/core/Makefile
>> +++ b/net/core/Makefile
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NETWORK_PHY_TIMESTAMPING) += timestamping.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_NET_PTP_CLASSIFY) += ptp_classifier.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_PRIO) += netprio_cgroup.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_CLASSID) += netclassid_cgroup.o
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_LWTUNNEL) += lwtunnel.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_LWTUNNEL) += lwtunnel.o lwt_bpf.o
>
> Any reason you want to keep lwt bpf under the main CONFIG_LWTUNNEL infra config ?.
> since it is defined as yet another plug-gable encap function, seems like it will be better under a separate
> CONFIG_LWTUNNEL_BPF or CONFIG_LWT_BPF that depends on CONFIG_LWTUNNEL

The code was so minimal with no additional dependencies that I didn't
see a need for a separate Kconfig. I'm fine adding that in the next
iteration though. No objections.