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: <53a68a6d-a455-8b3a-22fc-ff0c2950c495@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:23:01 -0800
From:   Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of Indirect function calls



On 03/06/2018 10:32 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks a lot Eric, I absolutely understand your concerns. I asked the 
question as I did not want to spend the time if you guys were not 
willing to even entertain the idea. Thanks a lot for your flexibility.
The changes I am making are very simple and very unlikely to cause any 
issues. You can always reject the patch as too big and I will work to 
make it smaller.

Regards,

Shoaib