netdev - Re: [Patch net-next v2 2/2] net_sched: add network namespace support for tc actions

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: <56CDADDB.5070003@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:19:23 -0500
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2 2/2] net_sched: add network namespace support
 for tc actions

On 16-02-23 05:23 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:

>> It doesnt seem neccessary to have hinfo in tc_action. Quick scan:
>> __tcf_hash_release() seems to be the only other place that uses it.
>> And the callers to that appear capable of passing the struct
>> net or tn  which eventually propagates up...
>
> The tcf_action_destroy() callchain still can't find out hinfo yet.
>

Did you mean something else or am i missing the obvious?
I am looking at the call sites for tcf_action_destroy():
-tc_dump_tfilter() has access to *net
-tcf_exts_change() - one level lower it has access to *net; i think you 
added this to your patch too.
-tcf_action_init() has *net.

> I know this is one of the ugly parts, this is why I mentioned it
> in the changelog that we should refactor it. Do you mind if I
> refactor this later?
>

I didnt understand the problem.

>> That also seemed unneeded. You could have derived hinfo
>> from tn.
>
> This is a pure taste of the API, I want to hide the hinfo as much as
> I can and expose tn to callers.
>

I dont know how i missed that;->

>>
>> Otherwise looks reasonable. I was hoping we could get rid of the per
>> action pernet ops but that could come later.
>>
>
> That is hard (if not impossible), because we have to allocate the pernet
> ops on heap, which seems not doable.
>

We can worry later. I thought there was a way to do it with compilation
into namespaces.

cheers,
jamal