netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v16 00/15] Introducing P4TC (series 1)

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: <CAM0EoMknntbtdZY32yjA8pUHMONfZyO8gbxkm31eSKj19NBRhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:33:51 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, 
	Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>, namrata.limaye@...el.com, tom@...anda.io, 
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>, Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, 
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	khalidm@...dia.com, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, 
	victor@...atatu.com, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>, Vipin.Jain@....com, 
	dan.daly@...el.com, andy.fingerhut@...il.com, chris.sommers@...sight.com, 
	mattyk@...dia.com, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v16 00/15] Introducing P4TC (series 1)

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:23 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:08 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> >
> > My view is this series should still be applied with the nacks since it
> > sits entirely on its own silo within networking/TC (and has nothing to
> > do with ebpf).
>
> My Nack applies to the whole set. The kernel doesn't need this anti-feature
> for many reasons already explained.

Can you be more explicit? What else would you add to the list i posted above?

cheers,
jamal