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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:57:56 +0100 From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, tom@...bertland.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel infrastructure On 11/29/16 at 11:01pm, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:48:51AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > Should we check in __bpf_redirect_common() whether mac_header < > > nework_header then or add it to lwt-bpf conditional on > > dev_is_mac_header_xmit()? > > may be only extra 'if' in lwt-bpf is all we need? Agreed, I will add a mac_header < network_header check to lwt-bpf if we redirect to an l2 device. > I'm still missing what will happen if we 'forget' to do > bpf_skb_push() inside the lwt-bpf program, but still do redirect > in lwt_xmit stage to l2 netdev... The same as for a AF_PACKET socket not providing an actual L2 header. I will add a test case to cover this scenario as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists