netdev - Re: Why do we prefer skb->priority to 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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:08:29 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Dmitry Sytchev <kbdfck@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why do we prefer skb->priority to tc filters?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dmitry Sytchev <kbdfck@...il.com> wrote:
> Sorry for slight offtopic, but for some reason, recent netfilter SET
> changes, which allow setting queue number and priority via ipset
> skbinfo extension, don't work with multiple HTB on top of multiq or
> mq.

Can you show us your setup? `iptables -L` and `tc qd show dev ...`,
`tc class show dev ...` etc.


> At the same time, tc filters set on outbound iface with skbedit works
> fine both for prio and queue number.
> How can I find the difference in their behaviour to trace where queue
> number set by ipset match gets lost?

There are fewer places to set skb->queue_mapping than skb->priority.
Since you are using mq, you can watch the `tc -s -d class show dev ...`
output to see if your packets go to the desired queue.
--
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