netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 17/17] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

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: <CAHmME9pwVSeE=4aUD6RKLjE+DrHY1=3OtBS7sAvdR66gaNhNtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:08:07 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 17/17] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

Hello Andrew,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:30 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> I don't know if any of the crypto people are reviewing the networking
> code, but i don't think there are many networking people reviewing the
> crypto code.
>
> So please can you put the change log between versions for the
> networking code here, where we can easily see it.

All submissions >v1 have had a changelog in the 00/17 commit.

> I see you have yet again completely ignored my request to either
> 1) Remove the inline
> 2) Argue why it should be kept.

Most uses of inline are this way after checking the compiler output on
several platforms. (Generally my build-run-test cycle is actually
build-IDAPro-run-test.) If you feel that's been done too liberally,
I'm happy to spend time rechecking each use case.