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: <20171213164652.5e5dfa2b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:46:52 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 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, 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

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:42:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>>> 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.

If you look at it from Linux perspective that makes sense.  For people
coming from switching world the fact that we use qdiscs as a handle for
ACL blocks is an implementation detail..  is that the argument here?