netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] GTP: flow based

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOrHB_DTV_g3edbP+_UCDFnigGbXP=u2FUr=RH5am=ZGzhU6SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jan 2021 09:42:04 -0800
From:   Pravin Shelar <pravin.ovn@...il.com>
To:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] GTP: flow based

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 12:06 PM Jonas Bonn <jonas@...rbonn.se> wrote:
>
> This series begins by reverting the recently added patch adding support
> for GTP with lightweight tunnels.  That patch was added without getting
> any ACK from the maintainers and has several issues, as discussed on the
> mailing list.
>
> In order to try to make this as painless as possible, I have reworked
> Pravin's patch into a series that is, hopefully, a bit more reviewable.
> That series is rebased onto a series of other changes that constitute
> cleanup work necessary for on-going work to IPv6 support into the
> driver.  The IPv6 work should be rebaseable onto top of this series
> later on.
>
> I did try to do this other way around:  rebasing the IPv6 series on top
> of Pravin's patch.  Given that Pravin's patch contained about 200 lines
> of superfluous changes that would have had to be reverted in the process
> of realigning the patch series, things got ugly pretty quickly.  The end
> result would not have been pretty.
>
> So the result of this is that Pravin's patch is now mostly still in
> place.  I've reworked some small bits in order to simplify things.  My
> expectation is that Pravin will review and test his bits here.  In
> particular, the patch adding GTP control headers needs a bit of
> explanation.
>
> This is still an RFC only because I'm not quite convinced that I'm done
> with this.  I do want to get this onto the list quickly, though, since
> this has implications for the next merge window.  So let's see if we can
> sort this out to everyone's satisfaction.
>

I am all for making progress forward. Thanks Jonas for working on this.
I will finish the review next week.