netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/5] tcp: Access &tcp

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: <20220901144936.4aaef04b@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:49:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc:     <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <kuni1840@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/5] tcp: Access &tcp_hashinfo via net.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:25:20 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > I looks to me that the above chunks are functionally a no-op and I
> > think that omitting the 2 drivers from the v2:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220829161920.99409-4-kuniyu@amazon.com/
> > 
> > should break mlx5/nfp inside a netns. I don't understand why including
> > the above and skipping the latters?!? I guess is a question mostly for
> > Eric :)  
> 
> My best guess is that it's ok unless it does not touch TCP stack deeply
> and if it does, the driver developer must catch up with the core changes
> not to burden maintainers...?
> 
> If so, I understand that take.  OTOH, I also don't want to break anything
> when we know the change would do.
> 
> So, I'm fine to either stay as is or add the change in v4 again.

FWIW I share Paolo's concern. If we don't want the drivers to be
twiddling with the hash tables we should factor out that code to
a common helper in net/tls/