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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:40:13 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sven.eckelmann@...nmesh.com
Cc:     b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, tom@...bertland.com,
        jiri@...lanox.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] flow_dissector: Provide basic batman-adv
 unicast handling

From: Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@...nmesh.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:17:37 +0100

> we are currently starting to use batman-adv as mesh protocol on multicore
> embedded devices. These usually don't have a lot of CPU power per core but
> are reasonable fast when using multiple cores.
> 
> It was noticed that sending was working very well but receiving was
> basically only using on CPU core per neighbor. The reason for that is
> format of the (normal) incoming packet:
> 
>   +--------------------+
>   | ip(v6)hdr          |
>   +--------------------+
>   | inner ethhdr       |
>   +--------------------+
>   | batadv unicast hdr |
>   +--------------------+
>   | outer ethhdr       |
>   +--------------------+
> 
> The flow dissector will therefore stop after parsing the outer ethernet
> header and will not parse the actual ipv(4|6)/... header of the packet. Our
> assumption was now that it would help us to add minimal support to the flow
> dissector to jump over the batman-adv unicast and inner ethernet header
> (like in gre ETH_P_TEB). The patch was implemented in a slightly hacky
> way [1] and the results looked quite promising.
> 
> I didn't get any feedback how the files should actually be named. So I am
> now just using the names from RFC v3
> 
> The discussion of the RFC v3 can be found in the related patches of
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/849345/
> 
> The discussion of the RFC v2 can be found in the related patches of
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/844783/

Series applied, thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists