netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/3] udp: check for encap using encap

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: <7d1d7a75-06aa-4c46-0c80-27eb3318edc3@novek.ru>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:27:43 +0100
From:   Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] udp: check for encap using encap_enable

On 12.07.2021 15:33, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 15:13 +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> On 12.07.2021 15:05, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 13:32 +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>>> On 12.07.2021 09:37, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>>>> Fixes: 60fb9567bf30 ("udp: implement complete book-keeping for encap_needed")
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO this not fix. Which bug are you observing that is addressed here?
>>>>>
>>>> I thought that introduction of encap_enabled should go further to switch the
>>>> code to check this particular flag and leave encap_type as a description of
>>>> specific type (or subtype) of used encapsulation.
>>>
>>> Than to me it looks more like a refactor than a fix. Is this strictly
>>> needed by the following patch? if not, I suggest to consider net-next
>>> as a target for this patch, or even better, drop it altogether.
>>>
>> Looks like it isn't strictly needed for the following patch. Do you think that
>> such refactor would lead to more harm than benefits provided by clearness of
>> usage of encap_enable and encap_type fields?
> 
> Yes. That patch is invasive and the clarification is quite subjective
> IMHO.
>
Ok, no problem, will drop it in next iteration.
Thanks