netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net/tc: introduce TC_ACT

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, 25 Jul 2018 16:24:09 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net/tc: introduce TC_ACT_REINJECT.

On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 08:27 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 25/07/18 04:29 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:50 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> 
> [..]
> > > > I fail to understand why overlimit is increased in your case
> > > > here. I guess you want to increase 'drops' instead.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, actually the current mirred code increases overlimit too.
> > > But I still don't think it makes sense.
> > 
> > Yep, I chose to increment 'overlimits' to preserve the current mirred
> > semantic.
> > 
> > AFAICS, that was first introduced with:
> > 
> > commit 8919bc13e8d92c5b082c5c0321567383a071f5bc
> > Author: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
> > Date:   Mon Aug 15 05:25:40 2011 +0000
> > 
> >      net_sched: fix port mirror/redirect stats reporting
> > 
> > Likely increasing 'drops' would be "better", but I'm unsure we can
> > change this established behavior without affecting some user.
> > 
> 
> Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did
> not introduce them).
> IIRC, the reason was to distinguish between policy intended
> drops and drops because of errors.

Double-checking to avoid misinterepration on my side: you are ok with
keeping the 'overlimits' increment, right?

Thanks,

Paolo