netdev - Re: [patch iproute2 2/2] tc: add support for BPF based actions

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: <CAHA+R7OzoMOjkzDraia9g=32uVuDwGv3XQmWdh1vo292FNwv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:58:03 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 2/2] tc: add support for BPF based actions

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:50:47PM CET, cwang@...pensource.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "Usage: ... bpf ...\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, " [inline]:     run bytecode BPF_BYTECODE\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, " [from file]:  run bytecode-file FILE\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "Where BPF_BYTECODE := \'s,c t f k,c t f k,c t f k,...\'\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "      c,t,f,k and s are decimals; s denotes number of 4-tuples\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "Where FILE points to a file containing the BPF_BYTECODE string\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "\nACTION_SPEC := ... look at individual actions\n");
>>> +       fprintf(stderr, "NOTE: CLASSID is parsed as hexadecimal input.\n");
>>
>>Can we just use BPF transparently for gact?
>
> Why to squash it there? I think it is much clearer to do this
> separatelly.
>

Because they are both intended to drop/pass/pipe packets,
we don't have to make a separated one just because one is
using BPF one isn't.

>>It is never user-friendly to
>>use this kind of bytecode even though I know there is a tool to "compile"
>>BPF.
>
> Please see cls_bpf. It's already in-tree for some time. act_bpf just
> completes this.

Yeah, that is what I hate too.
--
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