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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 16:27:29 +0100 From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "Pablo Neira Ayuso" <pablo@...filter.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, Vishal Kulkarni <vishal@...lsio.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] flow_offload: Re-add per-action statistics On 15/05/2019 20:39, Edward Cree wrote: > A point for discussion: would it be better if, instead of the tcfa_index > (for which the driver has to know the rules about which flow_action > types share a namespace), we had some kind of globally unique cookie? > In the same way that rule->cookie is really a pointer, could we use the > address of the TC-internal data structure representing the action? Do > rules that share an action all point to the same struct tc_action in > their tcf_exts, for instance? A quick test showed that, indeed, they do; I'm now leaning towards the approach of adding "unsigned long cookie" to struct flow_action_entry and populating it with (unsigned long)act in tc_setup_flow_action(). Pablo, how do the two options interact with your netfilter offload? I'm guessing it's easier for you to find a unique pointer than to generate a unique u32 action_index for each action. I'm also assuming that netfilter doesn't have a notion of shared actions. -Ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists