netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Handle multi chain hardware misses

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: <20200123.105436.515913650694137847.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:54:36 +0100 (CET)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:     vladbu@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
        paulb@...lanox.com, ozsh@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Handle multi chain hardware misses

From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:18:21 +0000

> On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 18:16 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
>> Note that miss path handling of multi-chain rules is a required
>> infrastructure
>> for connection tracking hardware offload. The connection tracking
>> offload
>> series will follow this one.
> 
> Hi Dave and Jakub,
> 
> As Paul explained this is part one of two parts series,
> 
> Assuming the review will go with no issues i would like to suggest the
> following acceptance options:
> 
> option 1) I can create a separate side branch for connection tracking
> offload and once Paul submits the final patch of this feature and the
> mailing list review is complete, i can send to you full pull request
> with everything included .. 
> 
> option 2) you to apply directly to net-next both patchsets
> individually. (the normal process)
> 
> Please let me know what works better for you.
> 
> Personally I prefer option 1) so we won't endup stuck with only one
> half of the connection tracking series if the review of the 2nd part
> doesn't go as planned.

I'm fine with option #1 and will wait for that to appear in one of
your future pull requests.  It looks like patch #1 got some feedback
and needs some modifications first though.