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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:33:03 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc:     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 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.