netdev - Re: tc H/W offload issue with vxlan tunnels [was: nfp: flower vxlan tunnel offload]

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: <20170927091700.GC1944@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:17:00 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: tc H/W offload issue with vxlan tunnels [was: nfp: flower vxlan
 tunnel offload]

Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:29:35AM CEST, pabeni@...hat.com wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Moving to a separate theread, since I think this is more related to the
>flower core infrastructure than to the netrome patches.
>
>On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 09:40 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> This kind of hooks are giving me nightmares. The code is screwed up as
>> it is already. I'm currently working on conversion to callbacks. This
>> part is handled in:
>> https://github.com/jpirko/linux_mlxsw/commits/jiri_devel_egdevcb
>
>Thanks for the pointer.
>
>I skimmed quickly on the code and indeed it cleans this area a lot.
>If I read it correctly the ('good') command:
>
>tc filter add dev vxlan0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower enc_key_id 102 
>   enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_sw action [...]

I suppose "action mirred redirect eth0". Then yes, it will generate the
callpath you described below.

>
>will generate a call to:
>
>mlx5e_setup_tc(eth0, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower) via:
>
>fl_hw_replace_filter() ->
>  tc_setup_cb_call() -> 
>    tc_exts_setup_cb_egdev_call() ->
>      tc_setup_cb_egdev_call() ->
>        tcf_action_egdev_cb_call() ->
>          mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cb()
>
>and the 'bad' command:
>
>tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower enc_key_id 102 \
>   enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_sw action [...]
>
>will also call:
>
>mlx5e_setup_tc(eth0, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower) via:
>
>fl_hw_replace_filter() ->
>  ndo_setup_tc()

Sure. You are adding a rule to eth0, the call goes down to eth0 driver.
I'm missing why is it a problem? Why the call should not go down to the
eth0 driver?


>
>So it looks like the H/W offload hook will still be called with the
>same arguments in both case, and 'bad' rule will still be pushed to the
>H/W as the driver itself has no way to distinct between the two
>scenarios.

Why "bad"?

Regarding the distinction, driver knows if user add a rule directly to
the eth0, or if the eth0 is egress device in the action. Those are 2
separete driver entrypoints - of course, talking about code with my
changes.


>
>[ Note: I referred to the mlx hook just for convenience, should be the
>same with any driver implementing the same APIs ]
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paolo