netdev - Re: fq_codel and skb->hash

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:   Tue, 17 Jan 2017 07:14:54 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     Andrew Collins <acollins@...dlepoint.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: fq_codel and skb->hash

On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 22:18 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 17:44 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 17:04 -0700, Andrew Collins wrote:
> >
> >> >   Is there a better way to manage flow separation in routed+encapsulated traffic?
> >>
> >> Encapsulated traffic is fine, since flow dissector skips encap header(s)
> >> up to the L4 header.
> >>
> >> Problem is about encrypted traffic, since presumably this L4 header is
> >> opaque for flow dissector ;)
> >
> >
> > BTW, how can we make sure skb->hash is populated before IPSEC ?
> >
> > Relying on forwarding, and skb->hash set by a device might be not
> > enough.
> >
> Should we do skb_get_hash upon entry to IPsec?

Right, but that might add overhead in cases we do not need skb->hash
after IPsec . I've heard IPsec is already quite slow :/