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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:12:10 +0100 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>, Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>, Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/8] Add support for two classes of VCAP rules On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 16:02 +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote: > On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 15:22 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > Despite the 'net' target, this looks really like net-next material as > > most patches look like large refactor. I see there are a bunch of fixes > > in patches 3-8, but quite frankly it's not obvious at all what the > > refactors/new features described into the commit messages themself > > really fix. > > Yes the patches 3-8 is the response to Michael Walles observations on LAN966x > and Jakubs Kicinski comment (see link), but the description in the commits may > not be that clear, in the sense that they do not state one-to-one what the > mitigation is. > > See https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221209150332.79a921fd@kernel.org/ > > So essentially this makes it possible to have rules that are always in the VCAP > HW (to make the PTP feature work), even before the TC chains have been > established (which was the problem that Michael encountered). > > I still think this a net submission, since it fixes the problem that was > observed in the previous netnext window. > > But I will rephrase the reasoning in a V2 to hopefully make that more > understandable. > > If you still think it is better to post this in the upcoming net-next window, I > am also OK with that. IMHO this series is quite too invasive for net, especially considering it will possibly land into the Linus tree with a timeframe promising a large latency in response to any problem. If there is any kind of available workaround to address the issue (comprising disabling h/w offload) I *think* net-next would be a better option. Cheers, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists