netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v8 11/16] udp: implement ->read

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: <CAM_iQpVG3Sd=jA4jdt6HFRr8rKn7DRdWRyHBd9O3q0DuubMsRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:08:38 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <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>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v8 11/16] udp: implement ->read_sock() for sockmap

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:01 PM John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> This 'else if' is always true if above is false right? Would be
> impler and clearer IMO as,
>
>                if (used <= 0) {
>                         if (!copied)
>                                 copied = used;
>                         break;
>                }
>                copied += used;
>
> I don't see anyway for used to be great than  skb->len.

Yes, slightly better. Please feel free to submit a patch by yourself,
like always your patches are welcome.

Please also remember to submit a patch to address the name
TCP_ESTABLISHED, or literally any code you feel uncomfortable
with. I am actually comfortable with what they are, hence not
motivated to make a change.

BTW, please try to group your reviews in one round, it is
completely a waste of time to address your review one during
each update.

On my side, I need to adjust the cover letter, rebase the
whole patchset, and manually add your ACK's. On your side,
you have to read this again and again. On other people side,
they just see more than a dozen patches flooding in the mailing
list again and again. In the end, everyone's time is wasted, this
can be avoided if you just try to group as many reviews as possible
together. I certainly do not mind waiting for more time just to get
more reviews in one round.

And please do not give any ACK unless you are comfortable with
the whole patchset, because otherwise I have to add it manually.
It is not too late to give one single ACK to the whole patchset once
you are comfortable with everything. This would save some traffic
in the mailing list too.

Thanks!