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: <4E0DFCC1.1050409@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:58:41 +0200
From:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.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

Le 01/07/2011 18:49, Ben Greear a écrit :
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Agreed too.

	Nicolas.
--
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