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 14:22:30 +0000
From:   Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To:     Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
CC:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        "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>,
        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 The RFC I had posted is VERY outdated (message-id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
> 
> 

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.

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


Thanks,
Paul.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists