netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF

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: <20221130083912.GQ424616@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:39:12 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <andrii@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        <razor@...ckwall.org>, <mykolal@...com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <song@...nel.org>, <yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        <kpsingh@...nel.org>, <sdf@...gle.com>, <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        <jolsa@...nel.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for
 setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 08:15:10AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:50:01 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > Please tag for bpf-next  
> > 
> > This is a change to xfrm ipsec, so it should go
> > through the ipsec-next tree, unless there is
> > a good reason for handling that different.
> 
> Yeah, this is borderline. Do the patches apply cleanly to Linus's tree?
> If so maybe they can be posted as a PR and both trees can pull them in,
> avoiding any unnecessary back and forth...

Now, after the last PR was merged, the ipsec-next tree is empty,
and we are close to the end of this development cycle. So I don't
expect conflicts if that patchset goes in before the merge window.
If the bpf-next tree wants to take the v2 version, just let me
know. Otherwise I consider taking it into ipsec-next.