netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2] net_sched: introduce eBPF based Qdisc

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:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:35 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2] net_sched: introduce eBPF based Qdisc

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:59 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:27 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > > ---
> > > v2: Rebase on latest net-next
> > >     Make the code more complete (but still incomplete)
> >
> > What is the point of v2 when feedback on the first RFC was ignored?
>
> They are not ignored for two reasons:
>
> 1) I responded to those reasonable ones in the original thread. Clearly
> you missed them.

Multiple people in the v1 thread made it clear that the approach
presented in v1 is not generic enough. v2 made no attempt to
address these concerns.