netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress 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]

Date:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:45:15 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress
 actions

On 16-09-25 01:33 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:05:08 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>> On 16-09-23 11:40 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>>>
>>> [off topic]
>>
>> I think this is still on topic!
>
> Sorry, wasn't too clear on that.
>
> What I meant is that _existing_ "egress redirect" already gets us into
> crazy loops - the veth misconfig being just one example of, but
> many more exist (many device stacking constructs, with lower dev issuing
> an egress-redirect back to the topmost dev).
>

So this is stopped by the xmit_recursion Daniel mentioned, correct?

> Point is, IMO loop detection (whether/how addressed), is orthogonal to
> this series implementing "ingress redirect", and doesn't seem as a
> strict prerequisite to adding the "ingress redirect" functionality to
> act_mirred.
>
> We can later address any loop-detection improvements in mirred.
> WDYT?
>

If indeed the xmit_recursion solves the egress->egress problem then I
would suggest we need to address the egress->ingress issue.
BTW: plans to also address ingress->ingress?

cheers,
jamal