netdev - Increasing skb->mark size

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1448397144.14854.27.camel@mattb-dl>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:32:24 +0000
From:	Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Luuk Paulussen <Luuk.Paulussen@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Subject: Increasing skb->mark size

Hello,

Currently we have a number of router features (firewall, QoS, etc)
making use of ip tables and connection tracking. We do this by giving
each feature a certain area of skb->mark (say 8 bits each). This allows
us to simply restore skb->mark (using connection tracking) for packets
in a flow using the logic below.

Our software logic is:

1. The first packet in a flow traverses through ip-tables where
each feature has set rules to mark their section of skb->mark. 

2. We then store the mark into connmark. 

3. Then as each packet in the flow hits ip tables the first rule in
ip-tables simply restores the connmark and the packet goes to egress.

Up until now this has worked very well for us. However since skb->mark
is only 32 bits we have quickly run out of bits for marking. 

This leaves us with two options:
 - Don't allow all features to be enabled at once (i.e. multiple
features share the same area of skb->mark). This is not ideal.

 - Increase the size of skb->mark (or another solution such as adding an
additional field into sk_buff for marking).

Hopefully what I have explained above is a strong example of where
skb->mark is no longer large enough on routers using connection tracking
to achieve superior performance. 

I'm emailing this list for feedback on the feasibility of increasing
skb->mark or adding a new field for marking. Perhaps this extension
could be done under a new CONFIG option. Perhaps there are other ways we
could achieve the desired behaviour?

Thanks,
Matt