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]

Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:17:16 -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 Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:45 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
<ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>
> I will remove the functionality from conndscp that changes the conntrack mark, so that it only restores the mark into the diffserv field.
>
> So that I’m clear about which direction I should be headed:
>
> Bearing in mind that conndscp writes to the skb’s iphdr diffserv field and *not* skb->fwmark, do you still desire to see the dscp restoration code done as part of connmark.  In other words NOT have a separate conndscp module?
>

For me, the barrier is the name "connmark" is confusing if we put conndscp
into it. So, I think leaving conndscp alone is fine.

Perhaps we just need an action called "act_conntrack" which could retrieve
any meaningful information from conntrack to skb.

What do you think?

Thanks.