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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:08:10 +0800 From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> To: Matt Cover <werekraken@...il.com> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Matthew Cover <matthew.cover@...ckpath.com>, mail@...urcelik.de, pabeni@...hat.com, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, wangli39@...du.com, lifei.shirley@...edance.com, tglx@...utronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return On 2019/9/24 上午12:31, Matt Cover wrote: >> I think it's better to safe to just drop the packet instead of trying to >> workaround it. >> > This patch aside, dropping the packet here > seems like the wrong choice. Loading a > prog at this hookpoint "configures" > steering. The action of configuring > steering should not result in dropped > packets. > > Suboptimal delivery is generally preferable > to no delivery. Leaving the behavior as-is > (i.e. relying on netdev_cap_txqueue()) or > making any return which doesn't fit in a > u16 simply use queue 0 would be highly > preferable to dropping the packet. > >> Thanks It leaves a choice for steering ebpf program to drop the packet that it can't classify. But consider we have already had socket filter, it probably not a big problem since we can drop packets there. Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists