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, 1 Apr 2019 14:06:40 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant" <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/1] net: sched: Introduce conntrack action

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:22 AM Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >> On 1 Apr 2019, at 14:14, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:45:06PM +0000, Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
> >>> Hi Cong,
> >>>
> >>> OK, so I've renamed conndscp to conntrack and hopefully this are
> >>> flexible enough for future conntrack->skb operations to be added in the
> >>> future.  How does this one fly?
> >>
> >> This work sort of clashes with the work that Paul Blakey and I are
> >> doing to integrate conntrack with tc and vice-versa.
> >>
> >> Considering that in this patch the action is not RCU-ified, that it is
> >> using a struct as netlink parameter and it is dealing only with the
> >> dscp info, seems it's easier if we/you extend our code to support this
> >> feature as well.  How does that sound to you?
> >>
> >> The RFC I had posted is VERY outdated (message-id
> >> cover.1548285996.git.mleitner@...hat.com), please don't use it as
> >> reference.  Not sure if Paul can post a refreshed RFC already.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Marcelo
> >
> > I think the reality is that I’m way out of my depth here.  The idea was to have something so simple that I could write(copy - see act_connmark) it/use it for my use case.  I looked at the email you suggested and have not a clue!  Sorry.
> >
> > Maybe someone can see the idea and run with it.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> We are working on act_ct (basically a act_conntrack) which will be an
> action to send packets to conntrack for connection tracking. This two
> modes of operation are so different I don't think they need merging.

What do you mean by "send packets to conntrack"? It is kinda confusing
as TC is L2 and conntrack is L3, you want to re-inject the packets to L3??


>
> This would probably be better off with the previous name act_conndscp.


If naming is the only concern here, then it is not hard to find
a name we are all satisfied with, like act_ctinfo (if we still want more
than just DSCP).

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists