netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] flow_offload: Re-add per-action statistics

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:   Fri, 17 May 2019 16:27:29 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "Pablo Neira Ayuso" <pablo@...filter.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Vishal Kulkarni <vishal@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] flow_offload: Re-add per-action
 statistics

On 15/05/2019 20:39, Edward Cree wrote:
> A point for discussion: would it be better if, instead of the tcfa_index
>  (for which the driver has to know the rules about which flow_action
>  types share a namespace), we had some kind of globally unique cookie?
>  In the same way that rule->cookie is really a pointer, could we use the
>  address of the TC-internal data structure representing the action?  Do
>  rules that share an action all point to the same struct tc_action in
>  their tcf_exts, for instance?
A quick test showed that, indeed, they do; I'm now leaning towards the
 approach of adding "unsigned long cookie" to struct flow_action_entry
 and populating it with (unsigned long)act in tc_setup_flow_action().
Pablo, how do the two options interact with your netfilter offload?  I'm
 guessing it's easier for you to find a unique pointer than to generate
 a unique u32 action_index for each action.  I'm also assuming that
 netfilter doesn't have a notion of shared actions.

-Ed