netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] packet: introduce AF

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: <CAAsGZS48P+75FTkU-p_cmsZYwYpqtZRMf=BVv2grRS41sPjPDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:32:55 -0800
From:   chetan L <loke.chetan@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@...csson.com, ravineet.singh@...csson.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anjali.singhai@...el.com,
        rami.rosen@...el.com, jeffrey.b.shaw@...el.com,
        ferruh.yigit@...el.com, qi.z.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] packet: introduce AF_PACKET V4 userspace API

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:44 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: chet l <loke.chetan@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:34:32 -0800
>
>> I have not reviewed the entire patchset but I think if we could add a
>> version_hdr and then unionize the fields, it might be easier to add
>> SVM support without having to spin v5. I could be wrong though.
>
> Please, NO VERSION FIELDS!
>
> Design things properly from the start rather than using a crutch of
> being able to "adjust things later".

Agreed. If this step in tpkt_v4 is able to follow what req1/2/3 did as
part of the setsockopt(..) API then it should be ok. If its a
different API then it will be difficult for the follow-on version(s)
to make seamless changes.

Look at tpacket_req3 for example. Since there was no hdr, I had no
option but to align the fields with tpacket_req/req2 during the setup.
I won't have access to a SMMUv3 capable ARM platform anytime soon. So
I can't actually test/write anything as of now.


Chetan