netdev - Re: Optimizing tc filters

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: <1323546064.4016.27.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:41:04 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Optimizing tc filters

Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 13:16 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> Hello, all.  Given that there are several ways to direct packets into
> the appropriate queue, I was wondering which ways are generally more
> efficient.  There seem to be a number of email discussions but nothing
> authoritative.  From those discussions, it would seem that for most
> corporate usage (as in more traffic than a home user) we would have from
> most efficient to least efficient:
> 
> 1) Mark the connection with CONNMARK and us --restore-mark to mark all
> packets in the connection for classification via an fw filter
> 
> 2) Use the iptables CLASSIFY target
> 
> 3) u32 filter
> 
> 4) Mark individual packets and use an fw filter - one email thread says
> this is more efficient than #3
> 
> Is this correct?

Unfortunately CONNTRACK is a bit expensive...

If you control applications, you also can use SO_MARK from them.



--
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