netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/1] net: sched: Introduce conntrack 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: <C31CA770-E7CE-4C81-99F6-CB6EBDE5A6A9@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 13:54:48 +0000
From:   Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
CC:     "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/1] net: sched: Introduce conntrack action



> 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 The RFC I had posted is VERY outdated (message-id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