netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] ip fou: Support binding FOU ports

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: <CAKfDRXidni4nkqz_mGCqt=DhEGxGG4HvauO1xAwVSSQ-EuEYuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:29:17 +0200
From:   Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] ip fou: Support binding FOU ports

Hi David,

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 3:33 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> Missed this in v1: you definitely do not want to call ll_init_map here.
> It does a full kink dump which can be expensive on large scale setups.
> ll_name_to_index alone should be fine.

Thanks a lot for all your comments! It is not so strange that you
missed the ll_init_map()-call in v1, as it was not there :) I have
removed the call you commented and fou_parse_opt() works as intended.
I initially thought that ll_init_map() was required for the different
lookup-functions to work, but I see now that it is not the case.

Is the init_map()-call in print_fou_mapping() ok or shall I remove it
as well? I guess, at least in theory, showing fou sockets can lead to
resolving several unique interface indexes.

BR,
Kristian