netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

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: <20170104125559.34a7b7ed@griffin>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:55:59 +0100
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
> It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way 
> (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri?

What Simon says makes sense to me. ip_flags and tcp_flags sounds like
the best solution so far (even better than my original suggestion).

Thanks,

 Jiri