netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse

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: <31cfb1dc-1e93-e3ed-12f4-f8c44adfd535@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:39:03 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse

On 1/7/21 10:13 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:48:56 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>>> The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>>   $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \
>>>       lse depth 1 label 100                                     \
>>>       lse depth 2 label 200
>>>
>>>   $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress
>>>     ...{"eth_type":"8847",
>>>         "  mpls":["    lse":["depth":1,"label":100],
>>>                   "    lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}...  
>>
>> Is there any problem with this patch?
>> It's archived in patchwork, but still in state "new". Therefore I guess
>> it was dropped before being considered for review.
> 
> Erm, that's weird. I think Alexei mentioned that auto-archiving is
> turned on in the new netdevbpf patchwork instance. My guess is it got
> auto archived :S
> 
> Here is the list of all patches that are Archived as New:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?state=1&archive=true
> 
> Should any of these have been reviewed?
> 


Interesting. I thought some patches had magically disappeared - and some
of those are in that list.