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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists