linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode

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]

Message-ID: <CAGnkfhyaXzMx608jZqqjdywv6BZst97QSmGe++aSc=-xOQSWzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:19:52 +0100
From:   Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:14 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/19 4:03 PM, Matteo Croce wrote:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > this would work for locally generated echoes, but what about forwarded packets?
> > The point behind my changeset is to provide consistent results within
> > a session by using the same path for request and response,
> > but avoid all sessions flowing to the same path.
> > This should resemble what happens with TCP and UDP: different
> > connections, different port, probably a different path. And by doing
> > this in the flow dissector, other applications could benefit it.
>
> In principle it is fine, but I was not sure of overall impact of your change
> on performance for 99.9% of packets that are not ICMP :)
>

Good point. I didn't measure it (I will) but all the code additions
are under some if (proto == ICMP) or similar.
My guess is that performance shouldn't change for non ICMP traffic,
but I'm curious to test it.

-- 
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream