netdev - Re: [PATCH net V3 2/2] net: fix tcp reset packet flowlabel for ipv6

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     shli@...nel.org
Cc:     xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Kernel-team@...com, shli@...com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        flo@...rcot.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V3 2/2] net: fix tcp reset packet flowlabel for ipv6

From: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:30:27 -0700

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:10:38AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > +/* Like ip6_make_flowlabel, but already has hash */
>> > +static inline __be32 ip6_make_flowlabel_from_hash(struct net *net,
>> > +                                                 bool autolabel, u32 hash)
>> > +{
>> > +       __be32 flowlabel;
>> > +
>> > +       if (net->ipv6.sysctl.auto_flowlabels == IP6_AUTO_FLOW_LABEL_OFF ||
>> > +           (!autolabel &&
>> > +            net->ipv6.sysctl.auto_flowlabels != IP6_AUTO_FLOW_LABEL_FORCED))
>> > +               return 0;
>> > +
>> > +       flowlabel = (__force __be32)hash & IPV6_FLOWLABEL_MASK;
>> > +
>> > +       if (net->ipv6.sysctl.flowlabel_state_ranges)
>> > +               flowlabel |= IPV6_FLOWLABEL_STATELESS_FLAG;
>> > +
>> > +       return flowlabel;
>> > +}
>> 
>> I still don't see why you have to duplicate the code,
>> for me you can just refactor ip6_make_flowlabel()
>> and pass the hash as a parameter and pass
>> 'flowlabel' as 0, and no run-time overhead.
> 
> Still need extra check. Ok, I updated the patch.

This is not how you post a new version of a patch.

It is especially not the way to post a new version of a patch which is
part of a series.

You always must make a clean, fresh, patch posting.  Not as a reply to
a discussion email.

And when the patch is part of a series, you must repost the entire
series along with the "[PATCH ... 0/N] " header posting.