netdev - Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack

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: <4C08E62A.9020607@trash.net>
Date:	Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:40:26 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Netfilter Developers <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack_untracked

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 01 juin 2010 à 12:41 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> 
>>> BTW, I notice nf_conntrack_untracked is incorrectly annotated
>>> '__read_mostly'.
>>>
>>> It can be written very often :(
>>>
>>> Should'nt we special case it and let be really const ?
>> That would need quite a bit of special-casing to avoid touching
>> the reference counts. So far this is completely hidden, so I'd
>> say it just shouldn't be marked __read_mostly. Alternatively we
>> can make "untracked" a nfctinfo state.
> 
> I tried this suggestion, (a new IP_CT_UNTRACKED ctinfo), over a per_cpu
> untracked ct, but its a bit hard.
> 
> For example, I cannot find a way to change ctnetlink_conntrack_event() :
> 
> 	if (ct == &nf_conntrack_untracked)
> 		return 0;
> 
> Maybe this piece of code is not necessary, we should not come here
> anyway, or it means several packets could store events for this (shared)
> ct ?

We probably shouldn't be reaching that code since that would mean
that we previously did modifications to the untracked conntrack.
But a quick audit shows that f.i. xt_connmark will do just that.

> Obviously, an IPS_UNTRACKED bit would be much easier to implement.
> Would it be acceptable ?

That also would be fine. However the main idea behind using a nfctinfo
bit was that we wouldn't need the untracked conntrack anymore at all.
But I guess a per-cpu untrack conntrack would already be an improvement
over the current situation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html