netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: check tunnel option type in tunnel flags

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:05:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, davem@...emloft.net,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, jiri@...nulli.us,
        jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Pieter Jansen van Vuuren 
        <pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: check tunnel option type in tunnel
 flags

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:01:52 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 09:54:52 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Hmm... in practice we could steal top bits of the size parameter for
> > some flags, since it seems to be limited to values < 256 today?  Is it
> > worth it?
> > 
> > It would look something along the lines of:  
> 
> Something like that, yes. I'll leave to Daniel to review how much sense
> it makes from the BPF side.

Can we take this as a follow up through the bpf-next tree or do you
want us to respin as part of this set?