netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX

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: <5377f9a5-56db-537d-1079-ead60b67c71e@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:42:31 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than
 TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

On 17-04-28 09:21 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 02:30:17PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>> On 17-04-28 03:02 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:22:53AM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>>> Maybe I am misunderstanding:
>>>> Recall, this is what it looks like with this patchset:
>>>> <nlh><subsytem-header>[TCA_ROOT_XXXX]
>>>>
>>>> TCA_ROOT_XXX is very subsystem specific. classifiers, qdiscs and many
>>>> subsystems defined their own semantics for that TLV level. This specific
>>>> "dump max" is very very specific to actions. They were crippled by the
>>>> fact you could only send 32 at a time - this allows more to be sent.

>>>
>>> All I suggest is to replace NLA_U32 flags you want that does not
>>> have any semantics with NLA_FLAGS flags, which eventually will carry
>>> the exact same u32, but with predefined semantics, helpers, everything.
>>>
>>
>> I didnt understand fully Jiri. Are you suggesting a new type called
>> NLA_FLAGS which is re-usable elsewhere?
>
> Exactly. That's what I'm saying.
>

If you want to make it general:
I see the semantics of this thing as more detailed than what I had.
It would have a u32 bitmap + u32 bitmask.

cheers,
jamal