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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:12:10 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <>
To:     Steen Hegelund <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:, Randy Dunlap <>,
        Casper Andersson <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Wan Jiabing <>,
        Nathan Huckleberry <>,,,,
        Daniel Machon <>,
        Horatiu Vultur <>,
        Lars Povlsen <>,
        Dan Carpenter <>
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
> 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



Powered by blists - more mailing lists