netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Extract IFE logic to module

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: <DB3PR05MB0764ACA552D008CADD09ED40AC4C0@DB3PR05MB0764.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:12:06 +0000
From:   Yotam Gigi <yotamg@...lanox.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
CC:     "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Extract IFE logic to module

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon Horman [mailto:simon.horman@...ronome.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:17 PM
>To: Yotam Gigi <yotamg@...lanox.com>
>Cc: jhs@...atatu.com; davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Jiri Pirko
><jiri@...lanox.com>; Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>; Ido Schimmel
><idosch@...lanox.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Extract IFE logic to module
>
>Hi Yotam,
>
>On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0200, Yotam Gigi wrote:
>> Extract ife logic from the tc_ife action into an independent module, and
>> make the tc_ife action use it. This way, the ife encapsulation can be used
>> by other modules other than tc_ife action.
>
>I have no objection to this modularisation but I am curious to know
>if you have a use-case in mind. My understanding is that earlier versions
>of the sample action used IFE but that is not the case in the version that
>was ultimately accepted.

Hi Simon.

You are right that the patches were done for the former version of the sample
classifier, and there are not required for the current version. We don't have
current use-case in mind, but I did send the patches because I think it can help
others, or us in the future.