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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:08:10 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <>
To:     Matt Cover <>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,,,,,,,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <>,
        Matthew Cover <>,,,
        Nicolas Dichtel <>,,,,,,
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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists