netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tc: cls_bpf: make ingress and egress qdiscs consistent

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:	Fri, 03 Apr 2015 16:11:15 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tc: cls_bpf: make ingress and egress qdiscs
 consistent

On 4/3/15 4:04 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/3/15 3:54 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 04/04/2015 12:17 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> ...
>>> 1. there shouldn't be a choice at all for bpf. Because not pulling l2
>>> means it's bug.
>>
>> Yep, correct. You would also loose context for a possible dissection,
>> at best you only have skb->protocol.
>>
>>> 2. adding a flag means adding it to iproute2 with default off and making
>>> users forgetting it from time to time and have no way of knowing why
>>> their programs all of a sudden stopped working.
>>>
>>> classic falls under the same rules. It doesn't make sense at all to run
>>> a program on packet without L2 header. It's very odd both for classic
>>> and extended programs.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> Two 'if' conditions in critical path is bogus argument, since these
>>> checks would be there in ingress as well. Same critical path.
>>
>> Why bogus? There would be no such test on the normal egress path,
>> where this is irrelevant. I wasn't talking about ingress here.
>>
>> I see the point regarding the user option. So, why not adding a flag
>> to tcf_proto_ops a la `.flags = CLS_REQUIRES_L2` that gets propagated
>> to tcf_proto, and only ingress_enqueue() would need to test if the
>> classifier imposes that requirement, so it can push/pull.
>
> ok. that sounds better, but neither tcf_proto nor tcf_proto_ops have
> 'flags' field today... well, I guess it's time to add flags there.
> Probably add 'flags' to tcf_proto_ops only and do fl->ops->flags in
> ingress_enqueue()?
>
> Will respin.

nope. will take it back.
that doesn't work, since this check cannot be done in ingress_enqueue(),
because it sees the pointer to first filter only, so both TCQ_F_INGRESS
flag and CLS_REQUIRES_L2 flag need to be checked inside
tc_classify_compat() which is a lot worse than my current patch.

So I prefer this patch still :)

--
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