linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv11 net-next 2/2] openvswitch: Add support for unique flow IDs.

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, 3 Dec 2014 13:02:31 -0800
From:	Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>
To:	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv11 net-next 2/2] openvswitch: Add support for unique flow IDs.

On 3 December 2014 at 11:45, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com> wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that this is the first post based against net-next.
>>
>> On 2 December 2014 at 18:56, Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com> wrote:
>>> <....snip...>
>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow.h b/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>>> index a8b30f3..7f31dbf 100644
>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>>> @@ -197,6 +197,13 @@ struct sw_flow_match {
>>>         struct sw_flow_mask *mask;
>>>  };
>>>
>>> +#define MAX_UFID_LENGTH 256
>>> +
>>> +struct sw_flow_id {
>>> +       u32 ufid_len;
>>> +       u32 ufid[MAX_UFID_LENGTH / 4];
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>  struct sw_flow_actions {
>>>         struct rcu_head rcu;
>>>         u32 actions_len;
>>
>> Pravin, I changed the 'struct sw_flow_id' to the above after feedback
>> from the previous round, but it doesn't seem quite right. Is this what
>> you meant? Given that current ovs-vswitchd userspace only generates
>> 128bit UFIDs, it seems wasteful to be allocating so much for this. Did
>> you have in mind for this to be united with the unmasked_key?
>
> I am fine with 128bits of ufid, we can extend it later if we need it.
> But what do you mean by united unmasked key? Can you define the struct
> here?

What I mean, is that we could define sw_flow_id as:

+struct sw_flow_id {
+       u32 ufid_len;
+       u32 ufid[];
+};

...and just allocate sizeof(struct sw_flow_id) + nla_len(ufid_nlattr),
rather than always allocating a 260B structure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/