netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] GTP SGSN-side tunnels

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: <64102031-a435-9ca0-9dca-ec60d335c0e2@southpole.se>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:46:42 +0100
From:   Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
To:     Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
Cc:     pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] GTP SGSN-side tunnels

Hi Harald,

On 03/24/2017 11:15 AM, Harald Welte wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> looks fine to me, but I haven't tested it.  Did you manually test it
> using the extended libgtpnl + tools?

I have tested it against your libgtpnl branch laforge/sgsn-role. 
Creating an interface with tools/gtp-link works fine.

We have been running the v1 patches in a production load-testing system 
for the last month.  That all works and gives good performance.  I 
haven't been able to actually run the v2 and v3 patches in that 
environment as access to it is a bit limited... that said, the changes 
from v1 to v3 are really only cosmetic and don't even touch the "parts 
that matter" with respect to encapsulation. Really the patch is pretty 
trivial... mucking about with the netlink interface is the bulk of it 
and that bit has been tested and works.

>
> Also, in code like this:
> in
> +       if (gtp->role == GTP_ROLE_SGSN) {
> +               pctx = ipv4_pdp_find(gtp, iph->saddr);
> +       } else {
>
> I think general Linux kernel coding style is to not have curly-brackets
> around single-line blocks. See "Do not unnecessarily use braces where a
> single statement will do." in line 169 of
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>
> I won't mind your current style, and it is not a blocker issue to me,
> but still it would be nice for general consistency.
OK, I'll fix that up just for the sake of correctness and send a v4.

>
> Acked-by: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
>
Thanks,

Jonas