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]

Message-ID: <57EA4C66.8070907@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:39:34 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...ellosystems.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress
 actions

On 09/27/2016 10:07 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:56:06 -0400 (EDT), davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>> The discussion on this patch has ventured off into what to do about
>> recursion.
>>
>> But it unclear to me where this specific patch, and this series,
>> stands right now.  Someone please clear this up for me.
>
> Status:
>   - Series adds "ingress redirect/mirror" support
>   - Positive feedback for the feature
>   - So far no comments regarding code itself
>   - Questions raised regarding "recursion handling"
>     Expressed that existing mirred code (i.e egress redirect) is *already*
>     loop-unsafe (and also, some non-tc netdev constructs, as exampled by
>     others).
>     Discussion then wandered to "recursion handling".

Any reason why dev_forward_skb() is not preferred over direct
netif_receive_skb() you're using? It would, for example, implicitly
assure that pkt_type is always PACKET_HOST, etc.

Thanks,
Daniel