netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 1/2] flow_dissecror: Move ARP dissection into a separate function

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: <20170222083630.GC7517@penelope.horms.nl>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:36:31 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     jiri@...nulli.us, netdev@...r.kernel.org, tom@...bertland.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 1/2] flow_dissecror: Move ARP dissection
 into a separate function

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:32:35PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:33:18 +0100
> 
> > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> > 
> > Make the main flow_dissect function a bit smaller and move the ARP
> > dissection into a separate function. Along with that, do the ARP header
> > processing only in case the flow dissection user requires it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> 
> These two changes look fine to me, although I hope that the compiler
> doesn't decide to inline it anyways.

I think the approach taken would be a win regardless of inlining as
more logic is protected by dissector_uses_key() and thus less likely
to cause collateral damage.