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

Message-ID: <9ee545fca21031d4fbd82fe204be5323c9f9f7cd.camel@mellanox.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:26:47 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Handle multi chain hardware misses

On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 10:54 +0100, David Miller wrote:
> 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

Cool, will do option #1 then.. 

> your future pull requests.  It looks like patch #1 got some feedback
> and needs some modifications first though.
> 

Yes, Paul will send V3 and I will wait for all the needed ACKs and
Reviews, for this patchset and the ones to follow.

Thanks,
Saeed.