netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] Remove VLAN.CFI overload

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: <CAADnVQKzo_85bUPXnaqds0MxzrOu_BJwnZx25CbsNrjV=DHC3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:51:55 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, jhogan@...nel.org,
        linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, paul.burton@...s.com,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] Remove VLAN.CFI overload

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:48 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:58:29 +0100
>
> > Fix BPF code/JITs to allow for separate VLAN_PRESENT flag
> > storage and finally move the flag to separate storage in skbuff.
> >
> > This is final step to make CLAN.CFI transparent to core Linux
> > networking stack.
> >
> > An #ifdef is introduced temporarily to mark fragments masking
> > VLAN_TAG_PRESENT. This is removed altogether in the final patch.
>
> Daniel and Alexei, please review.

It was on my todo list.
All reviews got delayed due to LPC.

I guess too late to comment now.
Anyhow I don't see the value in this patch set.
Seems like code churn.

Michal, could you please explain the reasoning?