netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] openvswitch: enable NSH 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: <87o9qo9ru6.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
Date:   Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:03:29 +0200
From:   Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:     "Yang\, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com>
Cc:     "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dev\@openvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        "jbenc\@redhat.com" <jbenc@...hat.com>, "e\@erig.me" <e@...g.me>,
        "blp\@ovn.org" <blp@....org>,
        "jan.scheurich\@ericsson.com" <jan.scheurich@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] openvswitch: enable NSH support

"Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:09PM +0800, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> "Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com> writes:
>> 
>> > We can change this later if we really find a better way to handle this
>> > because it isn't defined in include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h, so I still
>> > have backdoor to do this if needed :-)
>> 
>> Sorry, I can't follow you.
>> 
>> It doesn't matter if something is defined in uapi headers, the
>> observable behavior matters. If you allow users to configure flows with
>> specific fields, it should not stop working at a future point in time.
>
> Anyway this can be changed if it is really needed, so far current way is
> the best one we can come up with, we would like to use it if you can
> have better proposal. We have explained repeatedly context headers must
> be matched and set, this is bottom line.

I understand that in the way you use those context fields you will have
to match on those. I understand that there is no way around that.

>> > For our sfc use case in Opendaylight, we use context[0] for tunnel ID,
>> > context[1] for destination IP for reverse RSP, they are used to match
>> > and set in OpenFlow table, you can't limit users to use them in such
>> > ways.
>> 
>> So in your specific case you expect the masks to be completely stable
>> because you defined a protocol on top of NSH, understood. And that is
>> stable accross all possible paths. Understood as well.
>> 
>> > If you check GENEVE implementation, tun_metadata* can be set or matched
>> > as any other match field.
>> 
>> Yes, I wrote that in my previous mail. I wonder why NSH context metadata
>> is not in tun_metadata as well?
>
> tun_metadata is tunnel metadata, GENEVE needs tunnel port, but NSH is
> not so, NSH can't directly use tun_metadata, for MD type 2, we need to a
> lot of rework on tun_metadata to make it shared between GENEVE and NSH,
> I don't think this can happen in near term. So tun_metadata isn't option
> for this now.

Sorry, I couldn't follow you. Why can't you store the context headers in
tun_metadata exactly?

[...]

Bye,
Hannes