netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/6] introduce trap control action to tc and offload it

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, 5 Jun 2017 21:43:17 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/6] introduce trap control action to tc and
 offload it

Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:46:51PM CEST, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 04:38:26PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> 
>> This patchset introduces a control action dedicated to indicate
>> to trap the matched packet to CPU. This is specific action for
>> HW offloads. Also, the patchset offloads the action to mlxsw driver.
>> 
>> Example usage:
>> $ tc filter add dev enp3s0np19 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 20 flower skip_sw dst_ip 192.168.10.1 action trap
>
>Hi Jiri
>
>So i assume this means a frame ingressing on the switch port
>enp3s0np19 matching the filter is now visible on the linux enp3s0np19

Yes.


>interface?  How do you avoid Linux processing it? If enp3s0np19 is a

On contrary. I want Linux to process it. The packet was stolen from the
offloaded fastpath to kernel.


>member of a bridge, we don't want the software bridge processing it
>and forwarding it out another port, since i assume the hardware has
>already done this. Or does the trap stop further processing of the
>frame by the hardware?

Exactly the latter :) Thanks!


>
>Thanks
>      Andrew