netdev - Re: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] flow dissector: ND support

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: <20170208200917.GA20719@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:09:17 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     tom@...bertland.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] flow dissector: ND
 support

Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:54:15PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:33:46 -0800
>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
>>> I think the above paragraph gets back to Tom's original question regarding
>>> making things more complex just for OvS (use-cases). Possibly ND is an edge
>>> case even for OvS and on reflection my timing for posting it seems to have
>>> been less than ideal.
>> 
>> If it wasn't ND it would be something else... with all the activity
>> happening in networking features and HW this is a timely discussion.
>> Flow dissector presents a good example of a function that might become
>> a dumping ground for an endless stream of features if we don't figure
>> out how exercise some restraint.
>
>I agree on most points.
>
>But, I would say that in this specific case, since we have ARP support in
>there already it behooves us to support the ipv6 side in the form of ND
>too.
>
>Then we can put a line in the sand and say that future feature additions
>in this area require serious discussion.

Yeah, well, and if there is a functinality that is unacceptable for any
reason to put into flow_dissector, we have to do a flow_dissector2?

Note that I originally had separate dissection in cls_flower, you
suggested to use the existing flow_dissector. And I still believe it was
the right way to do it.

I think that better is to make existing flow dissector more modular.
I'll look into this.