netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] xfrm & bonding: Correct use of xso.real

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: <Z/9y1GR5RGxp+UZ1@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:24 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Hangbin Liu
	<liuhangbin@...il.com>, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Nikolay
 Aleksandrov" <razor@...ckwall.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "Saeed
 Mahameed" <saeedm@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Jianbo Liu
	<jianbol@...dia.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Ayush Sawal
	<ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Przemek
 Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Sunil Goutham
	<sgoutham@...vell.com>, Geetha sowjanya <gakula@...vell.com>, Subbaraya
 Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>, hariprasad <hkelam@...vell.com>, Bharat
 Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>, Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
	"Leon Romanovsky" <leonro@...dia.com>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] xfrm & bonding: Correct use of
 xso.real_dev

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:51:47AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:11:36 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > I'm still a bit skeptical about the bonding offloads itself as
> > mentioned here:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZsbkdzvjVf3GiYHa@gauss3.secunet.de/
> 
> So am I, FWIW.
> 
> > but I'm OK with this particular pachset.
> > 
> > How should we merge this patchset? It touches several subsystems,
> > including xfrm. I'm fine merging it through the ipsec-next tree,
> > but would be also ok if it goes though the net-next tree if
> > that's easier.
> 
> No strong preference, but I think xfrm tree makes most sense.
> It touches a few other directories but all code here is xfrm
> related.

Ok, I'll take them into ipsec-next.