netdev - Re: [PATCH 2.6.23+] ingress classify to [nf]mark

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:40:00 -0200
From:	Dzianis Kahanovich <mahatma@...u.unibel.by>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	hadi@...erus.ca, mahatma@...by
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.23+] ingress classify to [nf]mark

jamal wrote:

>> I in doubts only about "action continue".
>> To "and/or" behaviour one of best usage are (example):
> 
> I dont think you should be touching the action part at all primarily
> because actions can set the mark after classification. 

Yes, I only do it by inertia after "#define tc_index mark".

I not understand why "tc_index" changed in this place. 1) there are ingress 2) 
there are "OK" action. Are "tc_index" will not changed after: "tc filter add 
dev eth0 parent ffff: ... flowid 1:1 action continue" ? In general - are 
tc_index useful in ingress? (may be tc_index used in [nf]mark-style, but even 
in netfilter it feature migrate - IMHO, may be I time to time do not see in 
needed place)

Sorry, I just change focus from existing "tc_index=..." to common behaviour ;)

[...]
> Please refer to what i said above; if what i said still doesnt make
> sense i can create (the simple) patch.

A bit vague... sorry...

-- 
WBR,
Denis Kaganovich,  mahatma@...by  http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html