netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER

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:	Mon, 23 May 2011 15:23:14 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com,
	jpirko@...hat.com, xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net, jesse@...ira.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER_HDR

On 05/23/2011 03:05 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> David Miller<davem@...emloft.net>  writes:
>
>> From: Stephen Hemminger<shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:00:48 -0700
>>
>>> IMHO the REORDER_HDR flag was a design mistake. It means supporting
>>> two different API's for the application. For a packet capture application
>>> it means the format of the packet will be different based on how
>>> the VLAN was created. And the vlan was created outside the application.
>>>
>>> If there was a requirement to support both formats, then it should
>>> be a property of the AF_PACKET socket.  The application can then do
>>> an setsockopt() to control the format of the data. The issue is
>>> for things like mmap/AF_PACKET the re-inserted form will be slower
>>> since data has to be copied.
>>
>> Indeed, it was a foolish thing to support in the first place.
>>
>> I guess we couldn't see the hw offloads in the future at that
>> point.
>>
>> I'm all for finding a way to deprecate this over time.
>
>
> There are two very similar issues here, that affect two
> slightly different cases.
>
> Let's assume the configuration is:
> eth0 - Talks to the outside world.
> vlan2000 - Is the vlan interface of interest.
>
>
> With REORDER_HDR set when I tcpdump on vlan2000 I don't see the
> vlan header, however I continue to see the vlan header when I tcpdump on eth0.

That seems good.  This is what originally let dhcp function.  Not sure
if it's still required for dhcp, but there could easily be other programs that
have similar issues.

With REORDER_HDR off, we should see vlan tagged packets on both eth0
and vlan2000.

If REORDER_HDR dissappears entirely, I think you have to default to
stripping the header on vlan2000.

>
> With vlan hardware acceleration.  When I tcpdump on eth0 I don't
> see the vlan header.  Nor do I see the vlan header when I tcpdump
> on vlan2000.

I think you should see the header on eth0 regardless of hw acceleration
or not.  Users should not have to know if their NIC/driver supports
vlan tag stripping in one mode or another.


> Right now both cases are problematic in Linus's tree.
>
> For inbound packets We are testing the wrong interface for the to see if
> we should play with REORDER_HDR.
>
> Hardware acceleration vlan tagging we are hiding the vlan header from
> portable applications that simply dump eth0.  Which is non-intuitive
> and apparent to everyone now that this happens on both software and
> hardware interfaces.
>
>
> So we have a couple of questions.
> 1) Do we revert the software emulation of vlan header tagging to fix
>     it's implementation issues in 2.6.40?
>
>     The big issues.
>     - vlan_untag is currently reading undefined data.
>     - Clearing REORDER_HDR no longer works.
>
>     I expect the issues are small enough that we can address them now.
>
> 2) Do we instead move the software implementation of vlan header
>     acceleration back into the net-next.
>
> 3) What do we do with pf_packet and vlan hardware acceleration when
>     dumping not the vlan interface but the interface below the vlan
>     interface?
>
>     Do we provide an option to keep the vlan header?  Should that option
>     be on by default?

At the least we need to have the header kept when using pf_packet on eth0.

I think it's best to have it available on vlan2000, but perhaps have it
stripped by default for backwards compatibility.

Thanks,
Ben


>
> Eric


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
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