netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions

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:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:47:09 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...ellosystems.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress
 actions

On 09/27/2016 04:18 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:44:41 -0400 (EDT), davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:39:34 +0200
>>
>>> Any reason why dev_forward_skb() is not preferred over direct
>>> netif_receive_skb() you're using? It would, for example, implicitly
>>> assure that pkt_type is always PACKET_HOST, etc.
>>
>> dev_forward_skb() will pull the ethernet header.
>>
>> And since a direct call to netif_receive_skb() will not, one of these
>> two choices won't work properly.
>
> In the patch, I'm issuing a skb_pull_rcsum() prior the netif_receive_skb,
> snip:
>
[...]
>
> Existing *egress* mir/red already supported pairing two non-eth devices.
> Therefore I allow it for the new *ingress* mir/red as well.
[...]

Yeah, makes sense then. Should skb->pkt_type become an issue, you might
probably just use act_skbedit for such cases.