netdev - Re: [patch net-next v3 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share filter block instances

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: <20171213184241.GL2031@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:42:41 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
        john.hurley@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share
 filter block instances

Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 07:28:59PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>On 12/13/17 10:39 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 06:18:04PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>> On 12/13/17 10:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:54:35PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/17 8:10 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>> So back to the example. First, we create 2 qdiscs. Both will share
>>>>>> block number 22. "22" is just an identification. If we don't pass any
>>>>>> block number, a new one will be generated by kernel:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ tc qdisc add dev ens7 ingress block 22
>>>>>>                                 ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> $ tc qdisc add dev ens8 ingress block 22
>>>>>>                                 ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now if we list the qdiscs, we will see the block index in the output:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ tc qdisc
>>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: dev ens7 parent ffff:fff1 block 22
>>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: dev ens8 parent ffff:fff1 block 22
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To make is more visual, the situation looks like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    ens7 ingress qdisc                 ens7 ingress qdisc
>>>>>>           |                                  |
>>>>>>           |                                  |
>>>>>>           +---------->  block 22  <----------+
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlimited number of qdiscs may share the same block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we can add filter to any of qdiscs sharing the same block:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ tc filter add dev ens7 ingress protocol ip pref 25 flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action drop
>>>>>
>>>>> I still say this is very odd user semantic - making changes to device M
>>>>> and the changes magically affect device N. Operating on the shared block
>>>>> as a separate object makes it is much more direct and clear.
>>>>
>>>> I plan to do it as a follow-up patch. But this is how things are done
>>>> now and have to continue to work.
>>>
>>> Why is that? You are introducing the notion of a shared block with this
>>> patch set. What is the legacy "how things are done now" you are
>>> referring to?
>> 
>> Well, the filter add/del should just work no matter if the block behind is
>> shared or not.
>
>My argument is that modifying a shared block instance via a dev should
>not be allowed. Those changes should only be allowed via the shared
>block. So if a user puts adds a shared block to the device and then
>attempts to add a filter via the device it should not be allowed.

I don't see why. The handle is the qdisc here.