* [MERGE README] net --> net-next
@ 2017-10-22 12:57 David Miller
2017-10-22 13:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2017-10-22 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev; +Cc: daniel, ast, john.fastabend
There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
'net' into 'net-next'.
In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
The off-by-one stuff. The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
of packet pointer checks. And finally, the metadata stuff.
I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
by the interested parties.
Thank you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next
2017-10-22 12:57 [MERGE README] net --> net-next David Miller
@ 2017-10-22 13:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-10-22 19:41 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2017-10-22 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller, netdev; +Cc: ast, john.fastabend
On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>
> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>
> The off-by-one stuff. The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
> of packet pointer checks. And finally, the metadata stuff.
>
> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
> by the interested parties.
I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next
2017-10-22 13:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2017-10-22 19:41 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-10-23 0:16 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2017-10-22 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller, netdev; +Cc: ast, john.fastabend
On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
>> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>>
>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>>
>> The off-by-one stuff. The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
>> of packet pointer checks. And finally, the metadata stuff.
>>
>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
>> by the interested parties.
>
> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!
Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers()
in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just
max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read'
are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send
a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part.
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next
2017-10-22 19:41 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2017-10-23 0:16 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2017-10-23 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: daniel; +Cc: netdev, ast, john.fastabend
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:41:33 +0200
> On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of
>>> 'net' into 'net-next'.
>>>
>>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier
>>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes.
>>>
>>> The off-by-one stuff. The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form
>>> of packet pointer checks. And finally, the metadata stuff.
>>>
>>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work
>>> by the interested parties.
>>
>> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David!
>
> Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers()
> in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just
> max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read'
> are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send
> a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part.
Thanks for taking a look, I was slightly stumped by the max_t() and decided
to keep it in the merge. If both arms of the operation are u16 then indeed
it isn't necessary.
Thanks again!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-23 0:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-22 12:57 [MERGE README] net --> net-next David Miller
2017-10-22 13:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-10-22 19:41 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-10-23 0:16 ` David Miller
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.