netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 4/7] openvswitch: add layer 3 flow/port support

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:	Fri, 20 May 2016 17:16:13 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
	Lorand Jakab <lojakab@...co.com>,
	Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@...nge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 4/7] openvswitch: add layer 3 flow/port
 support

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:11:23PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:00:28AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:29:01 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > The second option does seem rather tempting although I'm not sure
> > > that it actually plays out in the access-port scenario at this time.
> > 
> > We support gre ports to be access ports currently. With conversion to
> > ipgre, this needs to continue working. It's no problem for frames with
> > the Ethernet header but now we have a situation where a port is tagged,
> > thus the user expects that packets received on that port will behave
> > accordingly. I don't think we can make some packets honor this and some
> > ignore this; and we can't disallow gre to be an access port.
> > 
> > How do you plan to solve this? By user space always pushing an ethernet
> > header before push_vlan?
> 
> Yes. That is my understanding of how OvS currently handles access ports but
> I have a feeling that either I am mistaken or that you are referring to a
> slightly different scenario.

Hi again.

I apologise for having sent my previous email a little too quickly.

My understanding is that currently OvS handles access ports using a
push_vlan action. And that this patch set in conjunction with its
user-space counterpart should ensure that a push_eth action occurs first.
This is the context of my remarks above.