netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix unconnected udp hooks

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

Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 02:19:48 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martynas Pumputis <m@...bda.lt>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix unconnected udp hooks

On 06/06/2019 02:13 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>  tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c     |  5 ++++-
>>>>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  2 ++
>>> Should the bpf.h sync to tools/ be in a separate patch?
>>
>> I was thinking about it, but concluded for such small change, it's not
>> really worth it. If there's a strong opinion, I could do it, but I think
>> that 2-liner sync patch just adds noise.
> 
> it's not about the size. It breaks the sync of libbpf.
> we should really enforce user vs kernel to be separate patches.

Okay, I see. Fair enough, I'll split them in that case.

Thanks,
Daniel