netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net: extend netdev features

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: <20210710133227.348899f8@hermes.local>
Date:   Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:27 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jian Shen <shenjian15@...wei.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxarm@...neuler.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: extend netdev features

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:35:52 -0700
Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:18 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> >  
> > > Infrastructure changes must be done as part of the patch that
> > > needs the new feature bit. It might be that your feature bit is
> > > not accepted as part of the review cycle, or a better alternative
> > > is proposed.  
> >
> > Hi Stephan
> >
> > I agree with what you are saying, but i also think there is no way to
> > avoid needing more feature bits. So even if the new feature bit itself
> > is rejected, the code to allow it could be useful.  
> 
> I would rather passionately like to expand several old currently 16
> bit fields in tc and iptables to 32 bits,
> and break the 1000 user limitation we have in things like this:
> 
> https://github.com/rchac/LibreQoS

Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the heavy lifting of having a UAPI
compatibility layer for this.