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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20221201071209.GR424616@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:09 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
CC:     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>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for
 setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:10:13AM -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 11/29/22 8:15 AM, 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.
> 
> The set is mostly depending on the bpf features.  Patch 2 is mostly
> depending on bpf and patch 3 is also a bpf selftest.  I assume the set
> should have been developed based on the bpf-next tree instead.  It is also
> good to have the test run in bpf CI sooner than later to bar on-going bpf
> changes that may break it. It is the reason I think bpf-next makes more
> sense.

As said, if there is a good reason, I'm ok with routing it
through bpf-next. Looks like there is a good readon, so
go with bpf-next.