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, 4 Oct 2017 10:15:58 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] flow_dissector: dissect tunnel info

Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:08:57AM CEST, simon.horman@...ronome.com wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:17:46AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:37:55PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
>> >> > Move dissection of tunnel info from the flower classifier to the flow
>> >> > dissector where all other dissection occurs.  This should not have any
>> >> > behavioural affect on other users of the flow dissector.
>> >
>> > ...
>> 
>> > I feel that we are circling back the perennial issue of flower using the
>> > flow dissector in a somewhat broader/different way than many/all other
>> > users of the flow dissector.
>> >
>> Simon,
>> 
>> It's more like __skb_flow_dissect is already an incredibly complex
>> function and because of that it's difficult to maintain. We need to
>> measure changes against that fact. For this patch, there is precisely
>> one user (cls_flower.c) and it's not at all clear to me if there will
>> be ever any more (e.g. for hashing we don't need tunnel info). IMO, it
>> should be just as easy and less convolution for everyone to have
>> flower call __skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info directly and not call if
>> from __skb_flow_dissect.
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>my original suggestion was just that, but Jiri indicated a strong preference
>for the approach taken by this patch. I think we need to widen the
>participants in this discussion.

I like the __skb_flow_dissect to be the function to call and it will do
the job according to the configuration. I don't like to split in
multiple calls. Does not make sense in the most of the cases as the
dissection state would have to be carried in between calls.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists