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: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 07:30:45 -0400 From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 00/13] cls_u32 cleanups and fixes. On 2018-09-09 10:15 a.m., Al Viro wrote: [..] > Umm... Interesting - TCA_U32_SEL is not the only thing that > gets ignored there; TCA_U32_MARK gets the same treatment. > And then there's a lovely question what to do with n->pf - > it's an array of n->sel.nkeys counters, and apparently we > want (at least in common cases) to avoid resetting those. > *If* we declare that ->nkeys mismatch means failure, it's > all relatively easy to implement. Alternatively, we could > declare that selector change means resetting the stats. > Preferences? I am now conflicted. I have sample scripts which showed that at one point that worked. All of them seem to be indicating the nkeys and stats never changed. So that could be a starting point; however, if a policy changes the match tuples then it is no longer the same rule imo. Note: you can change the "actions" - of which the most primitive is "set classid x:y" without changing what is being matched. i.e changing the classid in that example would work. cheers, jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists