netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5] GTP: add support for flow based tunneling API

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: <8adc4450-c32d-625e-3c8c-70dbd7cbf052@norrbonn.se>
Date:   Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:23:52 +0100
From:   Jonas Bonn <jonas@...rbonn.se>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Pravin B Shelar <pbshelar@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org, laforge@...monks.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5] GTP: add support for flow based tunneling API

Hi Jakub,

On 17/01/2021 01:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat,  9 Jan 2021 23:00:21 -0800 Pravin B Shelar wrote:
>> Following patch add support for flow based tunneling API
>> to send and recv GTP tunnel packet over tunnel metadata API.
>> This would allow this device integration with OVS or eBPF using
>> flow based tunneling APIs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar <pbshelar@...com>
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 

This patch hasn't received any ACK's from either the maintainers or 
anyone else providing review.  The following issues remain unaddressed 
after review:

i)  the patch contains several logically separate changes that would be 
better served as smaller patches
ii) functionality like the handling of end markers has been introduced 
without further explanation
iii) symmetry between the handling of GTPv0 and GTPv1 has been 
unnecessarily broken
iv) there are no available userspace tools to allow for testing this 
functionality

I have requested that this patch be reworked into a series of smaller 
changes.  That would allow:

i) reasonable review
ii) the possibility to explain _why_ things are being done in the patch 
comment where this isn't obvious (like the handling of end markers)
iii) the chance to do a reasonable rebase of other ongoing work onto 
this patch (series):  this one patch is invasive and difficult to rebase 
onto

I'm not sure what the hurry is to get this patch into mainline.  Large 
and complicated patches like this take time to review; please revert 
this and allow that process to happen.

Thanks,
Jonas