netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] tcp: Add clean acked data hook

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:32:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     rao.shoaib@...cle.com
Cc:     borisp@...lanox.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davejwatson@...com, ilyal@...lanox.com, aviadye@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] tcp: Add clean acked data hook

From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:16:48 -0700

> I agree, in fact I was using function pointers for the exact reason,
> to change the functionality of a function. I asked Dave about the
> use and he said No (Also note that the relevant CPU optimizations
> have been turned off on selected NIC's due to the latest security
> issues -- On AMD CPU's the optimizations are not turned off). So it
> is Dave's decision -- I am hoping that he would reconsider and allow
> me to use pointers as well as pointers solve the problem nicely and
> are used extensively.

This situation is different from your's Rao.

That proposal was to add indirect calls for things the TCP stack
internally can make internal state checks for.

Whereas this current patch discussed here is a driver offload hook,
which TCP cannot internally possibly know anything about.

I am fine with what Boris et al. are doing here.  It is a different
situation than your's.