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  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:	Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:17:59 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com,
	yotamg@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
	jhs@...atatu.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, rami.rosen@...el.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	sfeldma@...il.com, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
	aduyck@...antis.com
Subject: Re: switchdev fib offload issues

Hi Jiri,

On 18.04.2016 17:47, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Proposed solutions (ideas):
> 1) per-netns. Add a procfs file:
> 	/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/fib_offload_error_policy
> 	  with values: "evict" - default, current behaviour
>                         "fail" - propagate offload error to user
> 	The policy value would be stored in struct net.
 >
> 2) per-VRF/table
> 	When user creates a VRF master, he specifies a table ID
> 	this VRF is going to use. I propose to extend this so
> 	he can pass a policy ("evict"/"fail").
> 	The policy value would be stored in struct fib_table or
> 	struct fib6_table. The problem is that vfr only saves
> 	table ID, allocates dst but does not actually create
> 	table. That might be created later. But I think this
> 	could be resolved.
>
> 3) per-VFR/master_netdev
> 	In this case, the policy would be also set during
> 	the creation of VFR master. From user perspective,
> 	this looks same as 2)
> 	The policy value would be stored in struct net_vrf (vrf private).

I agree that a fail policy is probably the way forward regarding the 
issues you outlined.

One question though:

Shouldn't the policy by an attribute of the switch, e.g. configurable by 
devlink (maybe also not the right place)? Not sure how user space can 
otherwise make correct assumptions about the state of the switch and 
initiate proper countermeasures (e.g. reducing the smallest prefix 
length installed to hardware).

Bye,
Hannes

Powered by blists - more mailing lists