netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:06:04 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 anjali.singhai@...el.com, namrata.limaye@...el.com,
 deb.chatterjee@...el.com, john.andy.fingerhut@...el.com, dan.daly@...el.com,
 Vipin.Jain@....com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com,
 Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
 xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com,
 toke@...hat.com, mattyk@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

On 10/17/23 5:57 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:54 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>> On 10/17/23 5:38 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:00 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/23 10:38 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:15 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> FWIW please do not post another version this week (not that I think
>>>>>> that you would do that, but better safe than sorry. Last week the patch
>>>>>> bombs pushed the shared infra 24h+ behind the list..)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not intending to.
>>>>
>>>> Given bpf & kfuncs, please also Cc bpf@...r.kernel.org on future revisions
>>>> as not everyone on bpf list is subscribed to netdev.
>>>
>>> I thought i did that, maybe it was in earlier patches. Do you want Cc
>>> on everything or only on kfuncs? I am getting conflicting messages, do
>>> you have to Cc bpf for kfuncs?
>>> Example, attached from (some fs?) conference last month i think
>>
>> This is extending capabilities of XDP and tc BPF prog types, so yes, the bpf
>> list should be in the loop.
> 
> Roger that, makes sense. So all patches or only kfunc ones?

Preferably the whole series as it's a bit hard to see some end to end
example on how it would be used if it's largely taken out of context.