netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

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, 13 Feb 2018 08:19:35 -0800
From:   Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport,
 dport and ip proto

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:54:59 -0800
>
>> We had project/teams using different routing tables for each vlan they
>> setup :/
>
> Indeed, people use FIB rules and think they can scale in software.  As
> currently implemented, they can't.
>
> The example you give sounds possibly like a great VRF use case btw :-)



thanks for all the feedback so far.


replying to all the discussions on this thread so far here :):
- like davidA mentioned, we will be hardware offloading this. And the
most common hw offload case requires a 5-tuple match

- This series just extends the existing match options for people to
use the existing api if they choose too (with a performance penalty)
         - the main problem was telling people ...'oh, u cannot use ip
rules just because it does not support match on sport and so on and
there is no other way to do policy based routing on Linux'

- Regardless of this series, I think we should optimize ip rules or
have a new implementation of policy based routing. happy to hear about
possible options here:
         - optimize the existing implementation (have there been
previous discussions on possible options ?)
         - @netdev2.2, I did outline a possible option for tc to
provide an l3 hook for policy based routing (people were ok with this
and I was told more tc hooks were in the works).
            tc was a choice mainly because of all its existing match
options (flower for example). Will that help ?
         - We should have an ebpf accelerated implementation
regardless for people to use it if they want to scale rules