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:   Fri, 17 May 2019 16:27:29 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <>, Jiri Pirko <>,
        "Pablo Neira Ayuso" <>,
        David Miller <>
CC:     netdev <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Andy Gospodarek <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Michael Chan <>,
        Vishal Kulkarni <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] flow_offload: Re-add per-action

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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists