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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/7] gtp: misc improvements

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:48:12 +0100

> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 05:42:55PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
>> Hi Pablo,
>> This is a resent of last series that missed the merge window. There
>> are no changes compared to v4.
>> v4: Compared to v3 it contains mostly smallish naming and spelling fixes.
>> It also drops the documentation patch, Harald did a better job with the
>> documentation and the some things I described do not yet match the implementation.
>> I'll readd the relevant parts with a follow up series.
>> This series lays the groundwork for removing the socket references from
>> the GTP netdevice by removing duplicate code and simplifying the logic on
>> some code paths.
>> It slighly changes the GTP genl API by making the socket parameters optional
>> (though one of them is still required).
>> The removal of the socket references will break the 1:1 releation between
>> GTP netdevice and GTP socket that prevents us to support multiple VRFs with
>> overlapping IP addresse spaces attached to the same GTP-U entity (needed for
>> multi APN support, coming a follow up series).
>> Pablo found a socket hold problem in v2. In order to solve that I had to
>> switch the socket references from the struct socket to the internal
>> struct sock. This should have no functionl impact, but we can now hang
>> on to the reference without blocking user space from closing the GTP socket.
> Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
> I personally don't like this podge hodge unsorted submissions, I don't
> think they belong to the same series but you keep pushing with this
> patchset in this same way, which is annoying.
> In your follow up patchsets, please split them in smaller series that
> are related.

Series applied, and I agree with Pablo.

If the best you can come up with for a Subject line in your series
header posting is "misc improvements" it absolutely means you are
putting unrelated changes together in a series and you need to refine
the submission such that only related changes are submitted together.

Then you can say "gtp: Adjust GTP socket handling", for example, in
your header posting of a 2 patch series that includes only patches
#1 and #2.

Then you patiently wait for that patch series to be accepted, and then
you can move onwards to the other aspects of this series.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists