netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/5] Add MPLS actions to TC

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: <CAF=yD-LsMtAVLU_dnQFPUVeTNZT6saO-ZNeptVsoY_NkQFbbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:02:14 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/5] Add MPLS actions to TC

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:33 AM John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:19 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:32 PM John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patchset introduces a new TC action module that allows the
> > > manipulation of the MPLS headers of packets. The code impliments
> > > functionality including push, pop, and modify.
> > >
> > > Also included are tests for the new funtionality. Note that these will
> > > require iproute2 changes to be submitted soon.
> > >
> > > NOTE: these patches are applied to net-next along with the patch:
> > > [PATCH net 1/1] net: openvswitch: fix csum updates for MPLS actions
> > > This patch has been accepted into net but, at time of posting, is not yet
> > > in net-next.
> > >
> > > v4-v5:
> > > - move mpls_hdr() call to after skb_ensure_writable - patch 3
> > >   (Willem de Bruijn)
> > > - move mpls_dec_ttl to helper - patch 4 (Willem de Bruijn)
> > > - add iproute2 usage example to commit msg - patch 4 (David Ahern)
> > > - align label validation with mpls core code - patch 4 (David Ahern)
> > > - improve extack message for no proto in mpls pop - patch 4 (David Ahern)
> > > v3-v4:
> > > - refactor and reuse OvS code (Cong Wang)
> > > - use csum API rather than skb_post*rscum to update skb->csum (Cong Wang)
> > > - remove unnecessary warning (Cong Wang)
> > > - add comments to uapi attributes (David Ahern)
> > > - set strict type policy check for TCA_MPLS_UNSPEC (David Ahern)
> > > - expand/improve extack messages (David Ahern)
> > > - add option to manually set BOS
> > > v2-v3:
> > > - remove a few unnecessary line breaks (Jiri Pirko)
> > > - retract hw offload patch from set (resubmit with driver changes) (Jiri)
> > > v1->v2:
> > > - ensure TCA_ID_MPLS does not conflict with TCA_ID_CTINFO (Davide Caratti)
> > >
> > > John Hurley (5):
> > >   net: core: move push MPLS functionality from OvS to core helper
> > >   net: core: move pop MPLS functionality from OvS to core helper
> > >   net: core: add MPLS update core helper and use in OvS
> > >   net: sched: add mpls manipulation actions to TC
> > >   selftests: tc-tests: actions: add MPLS tests
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> >
> > I did have some conflicts applying the patches from patchwork (to diff
> > v4 vs v5). Might be my process. This is clean against net-next, right?
>
> Hi Willem, thanks for review.
> See the note in the cover letter....
> We had a patch accepted into net earlier in the week, these patches
> are applied to net-next + that patch.
> Unfortunately when we applied the patches direct to net-next and tried
> to merge in net then we got merge conflicts that needed manually
> fixed.
> Basically, the above patches should apply cleanly to net-next once net
> has been merged in.

Ah, that explains. Excellent, thanks for the follow-up. I had missed
that point in the cover letter (clearly).