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]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWLrRKKr4v6sUWeFfaJDJe4tGHdCAfUttxV4oQim=-9Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:03:39 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...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 12:24 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Interesting. Is it because cls_flower uses conntrack for flow dissection?
What's the reason behind?

Again, I am still not convinced to do L3 operations in L2, skb->_nfct
belongs to conntrack which is L3, no matter the packet is consumed
or not.

Thanks.