netdev - Re: [RFC patch net-next-2.6] net: allow multiple rx

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: <4E0DFA7F.20005@candelatech.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:49:03 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
CC:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kaber@...sh.net,
	fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [RFC patch net-next-2.6] net: allow multiple rx_handler registration

On 07/01/2011 09:45 AM, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
> Le 01/07/2011 17:01, Michał Mirosław a écrit :
>
>>>> We could introduce a catch-all macvlan/vlan device that would take
>>>> addresses/VLANs which are not covered by other configured
>>>> macvlans/vlans. This would allow clearer configuration and would make
>>>> the evaluation order explicit. As a bonus, this will give another
>>>> device to put tcpdump on. ;-)
>>>
>>> 'Sounds like what I had in mind in
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=130622112921245&w=2 .
>>
>> Almost. My idea assumes that eth0.any won't strip VLAN headers (so its
>> just looks like a filtered eth0).
>
> I originally thought unstripped packets should go to eth0.
>
> But, if eth0.any get untagged packets, we face two problems:
>
> 1/ We need a way to retrieve the original tag.
> 2/ We need a way to force the tag on output (or we consider eth0.any a
> pure tcpdump device, which is less useful).
>
> But if eth0.any get the exact same packets as those delivered to eth0,
> this seems useless.
>
> Or maybe, eth0.any should get only packets that weren't delivered to any
> eth0.XXXX devices... and should be named eth0.unmatched instead of
> eth0.any :-)
>
> Do we need eth0.untagged too (which would only get packets that were
> originally *not* tagged)?
>
> eth0 - Get everything, untouched. (I know several people except tagged
> packets to be untagged here, but I disagree with this part. eth0 is the
> raw device and should deliver raw packets, possibly retagging packets
> that were untagged by hw-accel).
> eth0.100 - Get VLAN 100 packet, untagged.
> eth0.untagged - Get only non-tagged packets, untouched.
> eth0.unmatched - Get only tagged packets, untouched.

Lets let the current vlan tagging changes settle a while before
adding yet more cruft in this area.

Packet filters should be able to filter on tags or not, so I don't
think these extra interfaces would be useful or needed.  We may
need to fix up the sk-filter logic a bit to deal with the
stripped tags, however.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
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