netdev - Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: Add a second bind table hashed by port and address"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJnrk1YnGssapE0HCiwLd9DqDULVytYGT_TTqPJyXz1pRO5HtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 10:41:05 -0700
From:   Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: Add a second bind table hashed by port
 and address"

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:29 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:18 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:01:36 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > Do we really need to remove the test ? It is a benchmark, and should
> > > > not 'fail' on old kernels.
> > >
> > > I agree it's nice to keep the self-test alive.
> > >
> > > Side notes, not strictly related to the revert: the self test is not
> > > currently executed by `make run_tests` and requires some additional
> > > setup: ulimit -n <high number>, 2001:db8:0:f101::1 being a locally
> > > available address, and a mandatory command line argument.
> > >
> > > @Joanne: you should additionally provide a wrapper script to handle the
> > > above and update TEST_PROGS accordingly. As for this revert, could you
> > > please re-post it touching the kernel code only?
> >
> > Let me take the revert in for today's PR. Hope that's okay. We can
> > revive the test in -next with the wrapper/setup issue addressed.
> > I don't want more people to waste time bisecting the warnings this
> > generates.
I'll make sure to include a wrapper script when I resubmit it.
>
> Note we have missing Reported-... tags to please syzbot.
Jakub, please let me know if you want me to resubmit v2 of this with
the Reported- tag added, or if you'll add that part in.