netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update

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: <CACAyw98r+Srg3K89VAh6VEYG7NxUxF=HzyqPwkBEXKCe2omimQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:30:04 +0000
From:   Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@...edance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update_proto()

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 18:21, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I am not surprised we can change tcp_update_ulp() too, but
> why should I bother kTLS when I do not have to? What you suggest
> could at most save us a bit of code size, not a big gain. So, I'd keep
> its return value as it is, unless you see any other benefits.

I think the end result is code that is easier to understand and
therefore maintain. Keep it as it is if you prefer.

> BTW, I will rename it to 'psock_update_sk_prot', please let me know
> if you have any better names.

SGTM.

-- 
Lorenz Bauer  |  Systems Engineer
6th Floor, County Hall/The Riverside Building, SE1 7PB, UK

www.cloudflare.com