netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] Introduce skbmod action

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:32:09 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] Introduce skbmod action

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 16-07-12 01:10 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
>>>
>>> This action is intended to be an upgrade from a usability perspective
>>> from pedit. Compare this:
>>>
>>
>> Definitely agree we need a more user-friendly interface.
>>
>>>
>>> pedit is a good starting point - but once you start going to a large
>>> number of policies then from a programmability, ops and usability point
>>> of view you need something with more succint params.
>>>
>>
>> But it is still unclear why we can't just build something on top of
>> pedit? Since pedit accepts keys like u32, user-space is free to
>> introduce any wrapper on top of it.
>>
>
>
> That hasnt served us well so far for reasons i described earlier
> especially in the dump case.
> It hasnt served u32 as a classifier well either (yes, those dump
> wrappers exist on the tc user code); i am almost willing to bet
> you didnt even know such a feature existed ;->

But this still sounds like it is solvable, just not yet solved, right?
And we don't have to change kernel space unless we can't
fix user-space.