netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] vxlan: implement GPE

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:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:38:10 +0100
From:	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] vxlan: implement GPE

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:31:10 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Sorry, I still don't like this. For VXLAN-GPE packets the above two
> conditionals are a complete waste of time and I shouldn't have to go
> pawing through configuration to determine what protocol has actually
> be implemented.  Please, at least move these into the else block of
> "if (vs->flags & VXLAN_F_GPE) {" above. This saves two conditionals in
> the data path, makes the parsing code more readable, and you don't
> need to reference configuration to figure things out.

As I already wrote, this is not possible. GPE parsing needs to occur
before iptunnel_pull_header (because we need to know the protocol), GBP
parsing needs to happen after it (after udp_tun_rx_dst specifically).

Believe me, I would do it that way if it was possible.

I also considered splitting rx path for GPE and non-GPE case and the
result was much uglier and longer code.

 Jiri