netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] net/sched: support tunnel options in cls_flower and act_tunnel

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: <20171002075013.GA22179@netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:50:15 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     jiri@...lanox.com, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] net/sched: support tunnel options in
 cls_flower and act_tunnel_key

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:54:23AM +0100, David Miller wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:16:32 +0200
> 
> > Users of options:
> > 
> > * There are eBPF hooks to allow getting on and setting tunnel metadata:
> >   bpf_skb_set_tunnel_opt, bpf_skb_get_tunnel_opt.
> > 
> > * Open vSwitch is able to match and set Geneve and VXLAN-GBP options.
> > 
> > Neither of the above appear to assume any structure for the data.
> 
> I really worry about this.
> 
> These metadata option blobs are internal kernel datastructure which we
> could change at any point in time.  They are not exported to
> userspace as a UAPI.
> 
> It's kinda OK for eBPF programs to access this stuff since they are
> expected to cope with changes to internal data-structures.
> 
> But for anything user facing, this really doesn't work.

Hi Dave, Hi Jiri,

the feedback I got from Jiri is that there needs to be some exposure
of TLVs. What I have in mind is to describe Geneve option TLVs in the
UAPI and for the kernel - most likely cls_flower, possibly using helpers,
to translate between that encoding and the one used internally by the kernel
- which currently happens to be the on-the-wire format.

I believe that in order to avoid per-packet overhead and at the same time
code complexity the TLVs should be described in-order. So matching on
TLV-A,TLV-B,TLV-C would be a different match to TLV-C,TLV-A,TLV-B.  An
order-independent match could be added if desired in future.

This would mean the feature is initially restricted to Geneve but could
be expended to offer a similar feature for other encapsulation protocols
as the need arises.

Would this address your concerns?