From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com,
herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, pablo@netfilter.org, paul@nohats.ca,
nharold@google.com, devel@linux-ipsec.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next, v2] xfrm: support sending NAT keepalives in ESP in UDP states
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:47:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15709.1702234055@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231210180116.1737411-1-eyal.birger@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(XFRMA_MAX != XFRMA_NAT_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL);
This code was there before, and you are just updating it, but I gotta wonder
about it. It feels very not-DRY.
It seems to be testing that XFRMA_MAX was updated correctly in the header
file, and I guess I'm dubious about where it is being done.
I said last year at the workshop that I'd start a tree on documentation for
XFRM stuff, and I've managed to actually start that, and I'll attempt to use
this new addition as template.
As a general comment, until this work is RCU'ed I'm wondering how it will
perform on systems with thousands of SAs. As you say: this is a place for
improvement. If no keepalives are set, does the code need to walk the xfrm
states at all. I wonder if that might mitigate the situation for bigger
systems that have not yet adapted. I don't see a way to not include this
code.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 511 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-10 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-10 18:01 [PATCH ipsec-next,v2] xfrm: support sending NAT keepalives in ESP in UDP states Eyal Birger
2023-12-10 18:47 ` Michael Richardson [this message]
2023-12-10 19:14 ` [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next, v2] " Eyal Birger
2023-12-10 21:06 ` Michael Richardson
2023-12-14 18:51 ` [PATCH ipsec-next,v2] " kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15709.1702234055@localhost \
--to=mcr@sandelman.ca \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@linux-ipsec.org \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eyal.birger@gmail.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nharold@google.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=paul@nohats.ca \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).