netdev - Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches

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:	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:35:15 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To:	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
cc:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches


On Wednesday 2012-12-05 22:45, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of
>>>xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I
>>>have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in
>>>kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large.
>>
>> Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c?
>
>I'm happy to do so, but note that that breaks the custom of
>having one static struct xt_$NAME for each file xt_$NAME.[ch].

The custom is long gone (just look at xt_mark.c ;-),
because the module overhead is so much more than a function with
an assignment/readout.

>To avoid rule explosion, I considered an xt_skbuff match rule that
>applies the same mask operation, range and inversion tests, and
>takes a field id to select the sk_buff field to operate on. I think
>the BPF patch is a better long term solution.

I can't disagree.
--
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