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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190204124804.thbjjwypnoyb2xbx@netronome.com> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:48:05 +0100 From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com> Cc: Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>, Guy Shattah <sguy@...lanox.com>, Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>, John Hurley <john.hurley@...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" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/6 v2] net/sched: Introduce act_ct [Repost without HTML; sorry about that] On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:26:23AM +0000, Paul Blakey wrote: > > > On 01/02/2019 15:23, Marcelo Leitner wrote: > > 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? > > I guess flower uses a netlink attribute per key attribute because > a lot of time, most of them won't be used, and you would send less. > we can have ct, ct + snat, ct + dnat, zone and mark.... a lot of this > won't be used sometimes. > > Also you can't add nested attributes to the struct easily. > > Also netlink attributes can be tested for existence, while a struct > would need a special non valid value, or another field to specify which > fields are used. > > both are hard to test if a requested attribute was ignored, besides > checking the netlink echo or dumping the action back. if for example a > older kernel module and newer userspace uses a attribute above > enum TCA_CT_MAX (struct attributes also don't have max len, in nla_parse). > > > All in all, I think mostly netlink attributes would be better. +1 I believe that Flower uses more attributes because its regarded as being more flexible and that benefit outweighs the extra cost - f.e. the netlink messages would tend to be a bit larger if a struct was used. > > > > >> +}; > >> + > >> +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 */ > > ... > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists