netdev - Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next

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]

Message-Id: <20171023.011640.460279805189770122.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:16:40 +0100 (WEST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:41:33 +0200

> On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
>>> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>>>
>>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
>>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>>>
>>> The off-by-one stuff.  The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
>>> of packet pointer checks.  And finally, the metadata stuff.
>>>
>>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
>>> by the interested parties.
>>
>> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!
> 
> Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers()
> in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just
> max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read'
> are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send
> a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part.

Thanks for taking a look, I was slightly stumped by the max_t() and decided
to keep it in the merge.  If both arms of the operation are u16 then indeed
it isn't necessary.

Thanks again!