netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/12] ipvs: optimize dst usage for real server

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:	Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:06:37 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ja@....bg
Cc:	horms@...ge.net.au, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/12] ipvs: optimize dst usage for real server

From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:58:09 +0200 (EET)

> 	There are two choices: __ip_vs_get_out_rt
> to return refdst as implemented in this patchset or
> to return dst with additional 'bool *noref' argument,
> so that caller can decide between skb_dst_set or
> skb_set_dst_noref. Then may be we will need just
> a new skb_dst_set_noref_{always,force} func that will
> contain the old skb_set_dst_noref code, i.e. without
> dst_hold? Not sure which variant sounds better.

Both variants are starting to sound equally ugly :-)

Let me ask about this situation in another way.

IP input route lookup clients handle this transparently,
even for routes with next-hop exceptions and nocache
routes, by passing the SKB into the lookup function and
there it will sort out whether noref is actually possible.

Is there a reason that IPVS's route lookup architecture
can't work this way too?
--
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