netdev - Re: Get rxhash fixes and RFS support in tun

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: <20131121.130339.204009506339126583.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:03:39 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	therbert@...gle.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, hkchu@...gle.com
Subject: Re: Get rxhash fixes and RFS support in tun

From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:28:18 -0800

> Since we're doing deep inspection now in flow_dissector, we should
> already have the discovered the hash on the inner header if it's a
> standard encap.

For AH and normal IP tunnels, this might be fine.  But this is not
possible for ESP since the inner headers are encrypted when the
flow_dissector takes a look.

And again, there is the issue of which hardware devices are doing this
properly.

And for those that do perform inner-tunnel deep inspection for rxhash
generation, how many layers of tunnels are they able to look beneath?

My impression is that they support one level, at best, which means the
rxhash is basically reliable only under a specific set of conditions.

I need you to elaborate with your knowledge of what hardware actually
supports and does in this area a bit more before I can have a real
opinion on what we should be doing.

Thanks.
--
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