netdev - Re: [patch net-next] tc: introduce OpenFlow classifier

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:45:13 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
	jesse@...ira.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] tc: introduce OpenFlow classifier

Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:36:27PM CET, tgraf@...g.ch wrote:
>On 03/27/15 at 01:28pm, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:44:02PM CET, tgraf@...g.ch wrote:
>> >On 03/27/15 at 07:07am, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> well, you can do *everything* with cls_bpf now that it supports ebpf.
>> >> But I think it is a big hammer. cls_openflow suppose to be just
>> >> replacement for existing ovs classification, with very simple and well
>> >> understood uapi.
>> >
>> >The current linear filtering approach makes it not suitable
>> >right now. No doubt that unifying flow classification would
>> >be great to have.
>> >
>> >Once you start building some form of wildcarded hash tables
>> >into this, I see a lot of overlap with cls_flow appearing.
>> >What about extending cls_flow instead? Are you still planning
>> >to have one cls_classifier instance per wildcard flow?
>> 
>> I'm not fan of extending cls_flow. It does something else. It calculates
>> hash and set classid according to that. I like better to do cls_openflow
>> on side.
>
>You'll probably end up with a hash as well. I doubt that you
>want to walk through a linear list of matches in the long term.
>Not sure about your plans though.

Sure, that was supposed next step, to change this to hash list.

>
>> >I'm usually all for small steps and take it from there but you
>> >are setting a uapi in stone here and once you add linear
>> >filtering behaviour you can't just undo it without a ton of
>> >flags.
>> 
>> 
>> Sure, what exactly is your uapi change proposal? I'd be glad to
>> incorporate it.
>
>You are adding linear matching with first-add-first-match
>behaviour. You can't break this order guarantee afterwards.

Allright.  I'll reimplement that.
--
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