netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1 v2] net: sched: Introduce conndscp action

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]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU-YrJPMUrjwiGPRzedteagJJeoQdQGVQwozbJLExP6-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:05:27 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     "Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant" <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>
Cc:     "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1 v2] net: sched: Introduce conndscp action

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
<ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> Thanks for your questions.
>
> > On 22 Mar 2019, at 17:39, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
> > <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Conndscp is a new tc filter action module.  It is designed to copy DSCPs
> >> to conntrack marks and the reverse operation of conntrack mark contained
> >> DSCPs to the diffserv field of suitable skbs.
> >>
> >
> > Is it possible and feasible to integrate this into connmark?
>
> I started off coding it that way but quickly ran into my limitations with netlink messaging and became frustrated.  Aside from my own limitations, conndscp ab/uses tcf_qstats requeues & overlimits to indicate DSCP->MARK->DSCP operations and has been useful in proving DSCP/marking operations are occurring in the right times/places.  Integrating with connmark which itself uses overlimits to indicate conntrack mark to skb->mark restoration would lose that differentiation/confirmation/debug ability.  A possibility is to ab/use the drop count instead but I fear that would cause confusion.

This sounds problematic, why a flag/parameter doesn't work?


>
> > Both are intended to retrieve information from conntrack and store
> > it into skb. I know the name "connmark" already says it is a mark,
> > while yours isn't, I still want to see if we can avoid code duplications.
>
> I understand your quest :-)  I think conndscp does a bit more than connmark.  Conndscp is two way diffserv<-->conntrack mark operation.  connmark is a single way conntrack mark->skb.mark operation.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to modify conntrack in TC,
as conntrack doesn't even belong to TC. Retrieving information
from conntrack and saving it to skb is fine, as we modify skb
in many different ways.

Thanks.