netdev - Re: Use of Indirect function calls

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: <1520404327.109662.37.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 22:32:07 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of Indirect function calls

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 21:53 -0800, Rao Shoaib wrote:
> David,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your prompt response. Do you have a specific
> solution 
> in mind or will the calls be replaced with simple checks ?

There is upcoming work for that, but not specific to TCP stack.

> 
> Also while I have your attention can I ask your opinion about
> breaking 
> up some TCP functions, mostly control functions into smaller units
> so 
> that if a little different behavior is desired it can be achieved
> and 
> common code could still be shared. Of course you can not say much 
> without looking at the code but will you even entertain such a change
> ?

I am sorry, but I would prefer no code refactoring unless you fix a
serious bug, or prepare for something really new (and having noticeable
impact)

We have to maintain stable trees, and such code churns are adding
maintenance hassles.

Of course, you can submit patches, but be warned that you can not
expect us spending hours reviewing patches that might bring serious
regressions.

I suggest you start with small patches first.