Re: [PATCH 3.16 289/305] netfilter: x_tables: validate targets of jumps

Ben Hutchings
2016-08-17T00:27:43Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 22:35 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 20:30 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 3.16.37-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
> > > >
> > > > commit 36472341017529e2b12573093cc0f68719300997 upstream.
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The extra overhead is negible, even with absurd cases.
> > >
> > > Not true, the overhead is huge and increases restore time for
> > > large rulesets from mere seconds to minutes, see
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f4dc77713f8016d2e8a3295e1c9c53a21f296def
> >
> > So do you think I should add that to this update or defer the netfilter
> > changes to the next update?
>
> Depends on what your focus is for 3.16.
>
> If your focus is to better not break anything I would just drop
> this patch and apply it for the next round with the fix
> (f4dc77713f8016d2e8a3295e1c9c53a21f296def) on top once it had more
> soak time.

I thought there were more that depended on this one, but in fact
dropping just this seems to work.  So that's what I've done for now.
Thanks.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]