netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/6 v2] net/sched: Introduce act

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]

Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:23:36 -0200
From:   Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Guy Shattah <sguy@...lanox.com>, Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>,
        John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Justin Pettit <jpettit@....org>,
        Gregory Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fwestpha@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Rashid Khan <rkhan@...hat.com>,
        Sushil Kulkarni <sukulkar@...hat.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
        Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Rony Efraim <ronye@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/6 v2] net/sched: Introduce act_ct

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:02:01AM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
...
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/tc_act/tc_ct.h b/include/uapi/linux/tc_act/tc_ct.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..6dbd771
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/tc_act/tc_ct.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> +#ifndef __UAPI_TC_CT_H
> +#define __UAPI_TC_CT_H
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/pkt_cls.h>
> +
> +#define TCA_ACT_CT 18
> +
> +struct tc_ct {
> +	tc_gen;
> +	__u16 zone;
> +	__u32 labels[4];
> +	__u32 labels_mask[4];
> +	__u32 mark;
> +	__u32 mark_mask;
> +	bool commit;

This is one of the points that our implementations differs. You used a
struct and wrapped it into TCA_CT_PARMS attribute, while I broke it up
into several attributes.

cls_flower and act_bpf, for example, doesn't use structs, but others
do.

Both have pros and cons and I imagine this topic probably was already
discussed but I'm not aware of a recommendation. Do we have one?

> +};
> +
> +enum {
> +	TCA_CT_UNSPEC,
> +	TCA_CT_PARMS,
> +	TCA_CT_TM,
> +	TCA_CT_PAD,
> +	__TCA_CT_MAX
> +};
> +#define TCA_CT_MAX (__TCA_CT_MAX - 1)
> +
> +#endif /* __UAPI_TC_CT_H */
...