netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] nfp: flower: support offloading multiple rules with same cookie

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: <CAK+XE==18NFnRYDZKhREmbVawbeUHj1W=HeymLzBBHwnXSfOKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:02:40 +0100
From:   John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>
To:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, ASAP_Direct_Dev@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] nfp: flower: support offloading multiple
 rules with same cookie

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:51 AM, John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Jakub Kicinski
>>> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>>>> From: John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>
>>>>
>>>> When multiple netdevs are attached to a tc offload block and register for
>>>> callbacks, a rule added to the block will be propogated to all netdevs.
>>>> Previously these were detected as duplicates (based on cookie) and
>>>> rejected. Modify the rule nfp lookup function to optionally include an
>>>> ingress netdev and a host context along with the cookie value when
>>>> searching for a rule. When a new rule is passed to the driver, the netdev
>>>> the rule is to be attached to is considered when searching for dublicates.
>>>
>>> so if the same rule (cookie) is provided to the driver through multiple ingress
>>> devices you will not reject it -- what is the use case for that, is it
>>> block sharing?
>>
>> Hi Or,
>> Yes, block sharing is the current use-case.
>> Simple example for clarity....
>> Here we want to offload the filter to both ingress devs nfp_0 and nfp_1:
>>
>> tc qdisc add dev nfp_p0 ingress_block 22 ingress
>> tc qdisc add dev nfp_p1 ingress_block 22 ingress
>> tc filter add block 22 protocol ip parent ffff: flower skip_sw
>> ip_proto tcp action drop
>
> cool!
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you actually share this HW rule or you duplicate it?

It's duplicated.
At HW level the ingress port is part of the match so technically it's
a different rule.