netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6] openvswitch: Support VXLAN Group Policy extension

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: <20150113010213.GA20387@casper.infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:02:13 +0000
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] openvswitch: Support VXLAN Group Policy extension

On 01/12/15 at 01:54pm, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> wrote:
> > +       if (tb[OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX])
> > +               opts.gbp = nla_get_u32(tb[OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX]);
> 
> Shouldn't this be OVS_VXLAN_EXT_GBP instead of OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX?
> (They have the same value.)

Good catch, thanks!

> > +       if (!is_mask)
> > +               SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, tun_opts_len, sizeof(opts), false);
> > +       else
> > +               SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, tun_opts_len, 0xff, true);
> 
> Have you thought carefully about how the masking model work as other
> extensions are potentially added? This was a little tricky with Geneve
> because I wanted to be able to match on both "no options present" as
> well as wildcard all options. The other interesting thing is how you
> serialize them back correctly to userspace, which was the genesis of
> the TUNNEL_OPTIONS_PRESENT flag.
> 
> My guess is that this may basically work fine now that there is only
> one extension present but it is important to think about how it might
> work with multiple independent extensions in the future. (I haven't
> thought about it, I'm just asking.)

I currently don't see a reason why adding another extension would be
a problem. It should work like Geneve options except that the order
of the options in the flow is given (struct vxlan_opts).

Matching on "no options present" is supported in the datapath by
via the TUNNEL_VXLAN_OPT flag although there is no way in user space
to express this intent yet. I haven't come across a need to support it
yet.

Since the Netlink API is decoupled from the datapath flow
representation, all of this can be changed if needed without breaking
the Netlink ABI.

> If you set Geneve options and output to a VXLAN port (or vice versa),
> you will get garbage, right? Is there any way that we can sanity check
> that?

What about if we only apply tun_info->options on Geneve if
TUNNEL_GENEVE_OPT is set and vice versa?
--
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