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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 11:23:47 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <>
To:     Edward Cree <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <>,
        David Miller <>,
        netdev <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Andy Gospodarek <>,
        Anjali Singhai Jain <>,
        Or Gerlitz <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/3] flow_offload: restore ability to collect
 separate stats per action

On 2019-05-08 1:07 p.m., Edward Cree wrote:
> On 08/05/2019 15:02, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> The lazy thing most people have done is essentially assume that
>> there is a stat per filter rule...
>> I wouldnt call it the 'the right thing'
> Yup, that's why I'm trying to not do that ;-)

Thank you ;->

>> Yes, the index at tc semantics level is per-action type.
>> So "mirred index 1" and "drop index 1" are not the same stats counter.
> Ok, then that kills the design I used here that relied entirely on the
>   index to specify counters.
> I guess instead I'll have to go with the approach Pablo suggested,
>   passing an array of struct flow_stats in the callback, thus using
>   the index into that array (which corresponds to the index in
>   f->exts->actions) to identify different counters.
> Which means I will have to change all the existing drivers, which will
>   largely revert (from the drivers' perspective) the change when Pablo
>   took f->exts away from them — they will go back to calling something
>   that looks a lot like tcf_exts_stats_update().
> However, that'll mean the API has in-tree users, so it might be
>   considered mergeable(?)

I would say yes, but post the patches and lets have the stakeholders
chime in.
Would it be simpler to just restore the f->exts?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists