netdev - Re: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH iproute2/net-next 7/7] tc: flower: Support matching on ND

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: <20170206100907.GA16548@penelope.horms.nl>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:09:08 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Dinan Gunawardena <dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH iproute2/net-next 7/7] tc: flower:
 Support matching on ND

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:44:59AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:44:00AM CET, simon.horman@...ronome.com wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:38:40AM CET, simon.horman@...ronome.com wrote:
> >> >Allow matching on Neighbour Discovery target IP, and source and
> >> >destination link-layer addresses for neighbour solicitation and
> >> >advertisement messages.
> >> >
> >> >Sample usage:
> >> >
> >> >tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress
> >> >
> >> >tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ipv6 parent ffff: flower \
> >> >	indev eth0 ip_proto icmpv6 type 136 code 0 \
> >> >	nd_target 2001:470:7eb3:403:201:8eff:fe22:8fea \
> >> >	nd_tll 00:01:8e:22:8f:ea action drop
> >> >
> >> >Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Why you are adding this to iproute2? You only poster RFC for kernel.
> >> 
> >> Please push to kernel first, let it merge, then send iproute2 support.
> >
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >I think there is a value in making the user-space code available in
> >parallel with the kernel changes to allow testing and so by any interested
> >parties.
> 
> Then mark it "RFC".

Sorry, that was my intention. Somehow it didn't happen.

> >If this is not acceptable I'm happy to stop doing so. But in my ideal world
> >I'd be very happy to see other TC kernel updates accompanied by
> >implementations their user-space tool counterparts.