netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Implement delete for BPF LPM trie

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:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 23:31:33 +0200
From:   Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kraigatgoog@...il.com
Cc:     ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Implement delete for BPF LPM trie

On 09/19/2017 11:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org> wrote:
>>> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400
>>>>
>>>>> This was previously left as a TODO.  Add the implementation and
>>>>> extend the test to cover it.
>>>>
>>>> Series applied, thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM
>>> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for
>>> that before pushing your tree?
>>
>> I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion.  It's
>> really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to
>> handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the
>> implementation details yet).
> 
> Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the
> series was OK.  All that was asked for were simplifications and/or
> optimization which could be done via follow-up patches.
> 
> It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real
> revert.
> 
> I hope that won't be necessary.
> 

Nah, it's okay I guess. I trust Craig to send follow-up patches. After
all, efficiency is what this whole exercise is all about, so I think it
should be done correctly :)



Thanks,
Daniel