netdev - Re: [iproute2-next PATCH v3 2/2] man: tc-flower: Add explanation for range option

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: <f4dd15da-3787-1351-9dcc-e7dbf06fb4b0@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:59:04 -0800
From:   "Nambiar, Amritha" <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
        jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [iproute2-next PATCH v3 2/2] man: tc-flower: Add explanation for
 range option

On 11/20/2018 8:46 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/20/18 9:44 PM, Nambiar, Amritha wrote:
>> On 11/20/2018 2:56 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 11/15/18 5:55 PM, Amritha Nambiar wrote:
>>>> Add details explaining filtering based on port ranges.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  man/man8/tc-flower.8 |   12 ++++++++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/man/man8/tc-flower.8 b/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>>>> index 8be8882..768bfa1 100644
>>>> --- a/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>>>> +++ b/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>>>> @@ -56,8 +56,10 @@ flower \- flow based traffic control filter
>>>>  .IR MASKED_IP_TTL " | { "
>>>>  .BR dst_ip " | " src_ip " } "
>>>>  .IR PREFIX " | { "
>>>> -.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } "
>>>> -.IR port_number " } | "
>>>> +.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } { "
>>>> +.IR port_number " | "
>>>> +.B range
>>>> +.IR min_port_number-max_port_number " } | "
>>>>  .B tcp_flags
>>>>  .IR MASKED_TCP_FLAGS " | "
>>>>  .B type
>>>> @@ -227,6 +229,12 @@ Match on layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only available for
>>>>  .BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp  " and " sctp
>>>>  which have to be specified in beforehand.
>>>>  .TP
>>>> +.BI range " MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE"
>>>> +Match on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only
>>>> +available for
>>>> +.BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp  " and " sctp
>>>> +which have to be specified in beforehand.
>>>> +.TP
>>>>  .BI tcp_flags " MASKED_TCP_FLAGS"
>>>>  Match on TCP flags represented as 12bit bitfield in in hexadecimal format.
>>>>  A mask may be optionally provided to limit the bits which are matched. A mask
>>>>
>>>
>>> This prints as:
>>>
>>> dst_port NUMBER
>>> src_port NUMBER
>>>       Match  on  layer  4  protocol source or destination port number.
>>>       Only available for ip_proto values udp, tcp and sctp which  have
>>>       to be specified in beforehand.
>>>
>>> range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE
>>>       Match  on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port
>>>       number. Only available for ip_proto values  udp,  tcp  and  sctp
>>>       which have to be specified in beforehand.
>>>
>>> ###
>>>
>>> That makes it look like range is a standalone option - independent of
>>> dst_port/src_port.
>>>
>>> It seems to me the dst_port / src_port should be updated to:
>>>
>>> dst_port {NUMBER | range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE}
>>>
>>> with the description updated for both options and indented under
>>> dst_port / src_port
>>>
>>
>> Okay, will do.
>>
> 
> Thinking about this perhaps the 'range' keyword can just be dropped. We
> do not use it in other places -- e.g., ip rule.
> 

Oops, submitted the v2 patch for man changes too soon, without seeing
this. So, in this case, should I re-submit the iproute2-flower patch
that was accepted removing the 'range' keyword?