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: Mon, 20 May 2019 11:40:51 -0400 From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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 2019-05-20 11:37 a.m., Edward Cree wrote: > On 19/05/2019 01:22, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:27:29PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > Thanks. Looking at net/netfilter/nfnetlink_acct.c, it looks as though you > don't have a u32 index in there; for the cookie approach, would the > address of the struct nf_acct (casted to unsigned long) work to uniquely > identify actions that should be shared? > I'm not 100% sure how nf (or nfacct) offload is going to look, so I might > be barking up the wrong tree here. But it seems like the cookie method > should work better for you — even if you did have an index, how would you > avoid collisions with TC actions using the same indices if both are in > use on a box? Cookies OTOH are pointers, so guaranteed unique :) A little concerned: Hopefully all these can be manipulated by tc as well - otherwise we are opening some other big pandora box of two subsystems fighting each other. cheers, jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists