netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] net: Kernel side filtering for route dumps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cfc753df-e14f-0bc7-c717-5bc91272274c@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:13:12 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] net: Kernel side filtering for route dumps

On 10/11/18 10:10 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (10/11/18 09:32), David Ahern wrote:
>>
>> Route dumps are done for the entire FIB for each address family. As we
>> approach internet routing tables (700k+ routes for IPv4, currently
>> around 55k for IPv6) with many VRFs dumping the entire table is grossly
>> inefficient when for example only a single VRF table is wanted.
> 
> I think someone mentioned a long time ago that a VRF is not an 
> interface/driver/net_device but rather a separate routing table with a
> dedicated set of interfaces, iirc :-) :-)
> 
> In the latter model, if you wanted to dump a VRF table, you'd only
> lock that table, and walk it, instead of holding up other VRFS 
> 
> sorry, could not resist my i-told-you-so moment :-P

huh?

VRF is a device has absolutely no relevance to this patch set.

There is no existing mechanism for dumping a single table. That's one of
the points of this set.