netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] L3 RX handler

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:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:05:45 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] L3 RX handler

On 8/28/15 10:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:34:20 -0700
>
>> Currently the VRF driver registers an Rx handler for enslaved devices.
>> The handler switches the skb->dev to the VRF device and sends it back for
>> another pass. While this works fine a side effect is that it bypasses
>> netfilter with the skb set to the original device.
>>
>> Looking at how to provide that feature a few options come to mind:
>> 1. Have the rx handler in the VRF driver duplicate some of the processing
>>     of ip_rcv up to the NF_HOOK and then switch the skb->dev to vrf device.
>>
>> 2. Run NF_HOOK in ip_rcv twice -- once with orig_dev and then again for dev.
>>
>> 3. Introduce an L3 rx-handler that provides the option of hooking packets
>>     at L3 rather than the current backlog loop.
>>
>> This RFC looks at option 3. I wanted to get opinions on the approach
>> versus other options.
>
> No way, this is not going to pass.

I'll drop this option. Thanks for the quick response.

--
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