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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2016 20:51:59 -0700
From:   David Ahern <>
To:     Thomas Graf <>, Daniel Mack <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/5] bpf: Refactor cgroups code in prep for
 new type

On 10/31/16 11:49 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 10/31/16 at 06:16pm, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 10/31/2016 06:05 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 10/31/16 11:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I'm confused too. I changed that name in my v7 from 
>>>> (Ahern) request. Why is it now renamed again?
>>> Thomas pushed back on adding another program type in favor of using
>>> subtypes. So this makes the program type generic to CGROUP and patch
>>> 2 in this v2 set added Mickaƫl's subtype patch with the socket
>>> mangling done that way in patch 3.
>> Fine for me. I can change it around again.
> I would like to hear from Daniel B and Alexei as well. We need to
> decide whether to use subtypes consistently and treat prog types as
> something more high level or whether to bluntly introduce a new prog
> type for every distinct set of verifier limits. I will change lwt_bpf
> as well accordingly.

Alexei / Daniel - any comments/preferences on subtypes vs program types?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists