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  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:	Sun, 22 May 2011 10:52:28 +0200
From:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 v2] net: vlan: make non-hw-accel rx path
 similar to hw-accel

2011/5/22 Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>:
> Le 22/05/2011 08:34, Eric W. Biederman a écrit :
>>
>> Jiri Pirko<jpirko@...hat.com>  writes:
>>
>>> Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:59:49AM CEST, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> And because some setups may still require the skb not to be untagged,
>>>> may be we need the ability to re-tag the skb in some situations...
>>>> When a protocol handler or rx_handler is explicitly registered on a
>>>> net_device which expect to receive tagged skb, we should deliver
>>>> tagged skb to it... Arguably, this may sound incredible for the
>>>> general case, but may be required for not-so-special cases like
>>>> bridge or protocol analyzer.
>>>
>>> Wait, what setups/code require the skb not to be untagged? If there's
>>> such, it should be fixed.
>>
>> tcpdump on the non-vlan interface for one.
> bridge is another. More precisely, there is a difference between the
> following two setups:
>
> 1/ eth0 - eth0.100 - br0 - eth1.200 - eth1
>
> 2/ eth0 - br0 - eth1
>
> In case 1, it is normal and desirable for the bridge to see untagged skb.
>
> In case 2, it is desirable for the bridge to see untouched (possibly tagged)
> skb. If current bridge implementation is able to handle skb from which we
> removed a tag, in this situation, it means that bridge currently "fix
> improper untagging" by itself, by forcing re-tagging on output. I think is
> should not be the job of protocol handlers to fix this. Again, a generic
> feature should to it when necessary.
>
> Think of the following setups:
>
> 3/ eth0 - br0 - eth1.200 - eth1.
> 4/ eth0 - eth0.100 - br0 - eth1
>
> What if one expect this setup to add (3) or remove (4) one level of vlan
> nesting? This is precisely what this setup suggest. How can we instruct the
> bridge to do so? It is not the bridge responsibility to do any vlan
> processing. bridge is expected to... bridge !

I assumed that this untaging Jiri is implementing does not remove the
tag. It moves the information from skb->data to skb->vlan_tci, but the
information contained is not otherwise changing. All your examples
should work regardless of where the tag is stored.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists