netdev - Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2018-12-11

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:29:49 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2018-12-11

On 12/11/2018 03:03 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 01:33:56 +0100
> 
>> It has three minor merge conflicts, resolutions:
>>
>> 1) tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
>>
>>  Take first chunk with alignment_prevented_execution. 
>>
>> 2) net/core/filter.c
>>
>>   [...]
>>   case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
>>   case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
>>         return false;
>>   [...]
>>
>> 3) include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>
>>   Take the second chunk for the two cases each.
> 
> Thanks for this guidance.
> 
> I'm not %100 sure I got case #3 correct.  The two sets of
> text talk about hashing over the "packet" vs. the "tuple".
> These intefaces take a tuple, so it only makes sense to
> talk about hashing over a tuple so I chose the hunk
> which says "tuple".
> 
> I had to deal with this during the net --> net-next merge
> last night as well.

Yes, absolutely, that is correct.

> Please double check my work and send me any relative fixups which
> might be necessary.

I've sent a minor fixup here to add back the formatting
improvements:

  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1010914/

Thanks,
Daniel