netdev - Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] net: sched: remove AT INGRESS/EGRESS

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: <20150515222254.GL6179@breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Sat, 16 May 2015 00:22:54 +0200
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jhs@...atatu.com, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] net: sched: remove AT INGRESS/EGRESS

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 07:21:15PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > So, from ifb point of view it makes no difference, G_TC_FROM+AT_STACK
> > causes skb to be dropped and IFB doesn't care about G_TC_AT() at all.
> 
> yes. your change is technically correct. It's not causing ifb regression,

Thanks.

> but it removes information in a way that will be very hard to add it later.

Are you sure?  Would you mind elaborating a bit?

> > AT_STACK cannot even happen for the G_TC_AT case from looking at the
> > code since dev_queue_xmit forces AT_EGRESS & rx sets AT_INGRESS.
> 
> yes, if we only consider ingress and egress hooks.
> I want to use this stack/ingress/egress indication with socket filters.

Hmm... I'm sorry, I fail to understand where problem is.

> If we make stack==egress, I would need to refactor this code all over again.

If you mean "skb was not forwarded", you could just check for
skb->skb_iif = 0?

If not, what info do you need, and why could we not extend proposed enum
if absolutely required?

> It's not broken today. You're doing this aliasing only two squeeze a bit.

Yep, but its was also to minimize the state machinery down to whats
required.

Sorry Alexei, I'm just trying to find out what exactly is needed,
perhaps if you can clarify/explain I might be able to re-spin this in a
way that will meet your requirements.
--
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