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:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:10:22 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <>
Cc:     Roopa Prabhu <>,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/6] Add support for offloading

Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:49:07PM CEST, wrote:
>On 16-10-13 04:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:29:57AM CEST, wrote:
>> > On 10/12/16, 5:41 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > From: Jiri Pirko <>
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > we spoke with yotam about this at netdev1.2. and also remember speaking about this on our switchdev calls:
>> > Today our driver uses NFLOG to log packets to a netlink socket and hsflowd supported by the sflow
>> > people (at is capable of reading from a nflog socket. NFLOG has the required netlink
>> > attribute markers for packet header/data (which we can possibly extend). We could also add nflog like action
>> > in tc if needed.
>> > 
>> > sflow agents like hsflowd are capable of sending packets to an external collector with the required sflow header.
>> > Instead of re-inventing a new API for sflow, would be better to standardize/unify on existing mechanisms.
>> > 
>> > Also, this patch series requires a new device to be created which can be avoided if we used
>> > existing mechanisms like NFLOG.
>> When I was first thinking about re-using NFLOG, it seemed like an
>> abusal. We need to call it from driver directly, which sounds odd.
>> However, since we use sample_packet_pack function to wrap it up, the
>> NFLOG is called from the tc action code, it does not look bad.
>> Yet still, this has nothing in common with netfilter, only using it's
>> log facilities. That is odd.
>Sorry, had not seen the code until now; helps me get perspective.
>If you are going to require  netfilter just so you can do this - it
>sounds so wrong (since you already provides a hook for tc offloading
>into the switch for other functions).


>Roopa, did you mean eth1 as the new device or did you mean just in
>general config requiring a device to be specified or did you mean a new
>cpu netdev being needed? I couldnt tell from the patch.

You just have to have some netdev to use to funnel the IFE headered
sample skbs to userspace. A dummy or a tap.

>> I think that the IFE ways is way more clear and generic and not-abusing.
>> However you are right the NFLOG way has advantage of existing user
>> component. I'm not sure how to do this :(
>Can you do NFLOG to user space without requiring netfilter compiled in?
>One advantage with IFE is it is a wire protocol - so you can have the
>sflow collector/aggregator sit on a different machine (for small cpu
>switches makes sense). So modifying the sflow daemon to accept IFE
>formatted data is an interesting!

Agreed. For me, that looks like the correct way to do this.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists