netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v7] openvswitch: enable NSH support

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, 4 Sep 2017 14:45:50 +0000
From:   Jan Scheurich <jan.scheurich@...csson.com>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
CC:     "Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        "e@...g.me" <e@...g.me>, "blp@....org" <blp@....org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v7] openvswitch: enable NSH support

> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:07:45 +0000, Jan Scheurich wrote:
> > Then perhaps I misunderstood your comment. I thought you didn't like that the
> > SET_MASKED action wrapped OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH which in itself was nested.
> > I was aiming to avoid this by lifting the two components of the NSH header
> > components to the top level:
> > OVS_NSH_ATTR_BASE_HEADER --> OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH_BASE_HEADER
> > OVS_NSH_ATTR_MD1_CONTEXT --> OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH_MD1_CONTEXT
> 
> No, this should be a nested attr.
> 
> I objected to the way value+mask combo is handled.

OK, sorry for the confusion. 

So what is the correct layout for MASKED_SET action with nested fields?
1. All nested values, followed by all nested masks, or
2. For each nested field value followed by mask?

I guess alternative 1, but just to be sure.

Jan