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]
Date:   Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:39:18 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com, wangdongdong.6@...edance.com,
        jiang.wang@...edance.com, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next 02/19] skmsg: get rid of struct sk_psock_parser

Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 05:16 AM CET, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> >
> > struct sk_psock_parser is embedded in sk_psock, it is
> > unnecessary as skb verdict also uses ->saved_data_ready.
> > We can simply fold these fields into sk_psock.
> >
> > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> > Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> > ---
> 
> This one looks like a candidate for splitting out of the series, as it
> stands on its own, to make the itself series smaller.
> 
> Also, it seems that we always have:
> 
>   parser.enabled/bpf_running == (saved_data_ready != NULL)
> 
> Maybe parser.enabled can be turned into a predicate function.
> 
> [...]

Agree. To speed this along consider breaking it into three
series.

 - couple cleanup things: this patch, config option, etc.

 - udp changes

 - af_unix changes.

Although if you really think udp changes and af_unix need to go
together that is fine imo. I think the basic rule is to try and avoid
getting patch counts above 10 or so if at all possible.

At least this patch, the renaming patch, and the config patch
can get pulled out into their own series so we can get those
merged and out of the way.

Thanks,
John

Powered by blists - more mailing lists