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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:15:59 +0200 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>, Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] act_mirred: use ACT_REDIRECT when possible Hi, On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 16:39 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:55 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > When mirred is invoked from the ingress path, and it wants to redirect > > the processed packet, it can now use the ACT_REDIRECT action, > > filling the tcf_result accordingly. > > > > This avoids a skb_clone() in the TC S/W data path giving a ~10% > > improvement in forwarding performances. Overall TC S/W performances > > are now comparable to the kernel openswitch datapath. Thank you for the feedback. > Avoiding skb_clone() for redirection is cool, but why need to use > skb_do_redirect() here? Well, it's not needed. I tried to reduce code duplication, and I tried to avoid adding another TC_ACT_* value. > There is a subtle difference here: > > skb_do_redirect() calls __bpf_rx_skb() which calls > dev_forward_skb(). > > while the current mirred action doesn't scrub packets when > redirecting to ingress (from egress). Although I forget if it is > intentionally. Understood. A possible option out of this issues would be adding another action value - TC_ACT_MIRRED ? - and handle it in sch_handle_egress()[1] with the appropriate semantic. That should address also Daniel and Eyal concerns. Would you consider the above acceptable? Thanks, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists