netdev - ethtool NFC/ntuple API questions

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: <569FBF9D.40002@solarflare.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:10:53 +0000
From:	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: ethtool NFC/ntuple API questions

I'm looking into adding IPv6 support to the ethtool flow steering API.  But,
I don't know "the unfortunate history of and subtle differences between the
RX n-tuple versus RX NFC commands".  In particular, would I need to add IPv6
support to both of them, or only one?  If one would be sufficient, which one
is preferred?
Also, is it necessary to duplicate the profusion of variants that the IPv4
flow specs have (3x struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec, 2x struct
ethtool_ah_espip4_spec, and struct ethtool_usrip4_spec), or should I just
make one struct that contains all the fields from those (I would say "the
union of their fields", but that might be confusing), and rely on flow_type
to indicate which fields are meaningful?
And, what exactly are the hdata fields in ethtool_flow_union and the
anonymous union in ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec (they're not documented) and
why are they different sizes?

-Ed