netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: Introduce action ct

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 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, 14 Jun 2019 16:24:03 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
        Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@...lanox.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>,
        Zhike Wang <wangzhike@...com>,
        Rony Efraim <ronye@...lanox.com>,
        "nst-kernel@...hat.com" <nst-kernel@...hat.com>,
        John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Justin Pettit <jpettit@....org>,
        Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@...byshire-bryant.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: Introduce action ct

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:07:37AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:44 AM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> > I had suggested to let act_ct handle the above as well, as there is a
> > big chunk of code on both that is pretty similar. There is quite some
> > boilerplate for interfacing with conntrack which is duplicated.
> 
> Why do you want to mix retrieving conntrack info with executing
> conntrack?

To save on the heavy boilerplate for interfacing with conntrack.

> 
> They are totally different things to me, act_ctinfo merely retrieves
> information from conntrack, while this one, act_ct, is supposed to
> move packets to conntrack.

Seems we have a different understanding for "move packets to
conntrack": conntrack will not consume the packets after this.
But after act_ct is executed, if not with the clear flag, skb will now
have the skb->_nfct entry available, on which flower then will be able
to match. So in essence, it is also fetching information from
conntrack.

I see act_ctinfo is a subset of what act_ct is doing.

  Marcelo