netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

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: <82df989f-09a7-a89a-a675-c45d190b049e@mellanox.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200
From:   Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
CC:     <paulb@...lanox.com>, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags



On 04/01/2017 12:33, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>> Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching.
>> And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need of a
>> update each time a new flag is introduced,
>> But I guess I can add two options like with ip_proto where you can specify
>> known flags by name but can also give a value.
>> What do you think about that?
>>
>> flags <FLAGS> / <HEX'/'HEX>
>> FLAGS => frag/no_frag/tcp_syn/no_tcp_syn ['|'<FLAGS>]*
>> e.g: flags frag|no_tcp_syn or flags 0x01/0x15
>> and the mask will have a on bits corresponds only to those flags specified.
> I suppose a flag is a flag and bitwise masking allows arbitrary matching
> on one or more flags. But I wonder if, as per your example above,
> it makes sense to mix IP (frag) and TCP flags in the same field of the
> classifier.
It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way 
(flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri?