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, 20 May 2019 11:40:51 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <>
To:     Edward Cree <>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <>, David Miller <>,
        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 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


Powered by blists - more mailing lists