netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation by netlink flag

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:   Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:12:22 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "mleitner@...hat.com" <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        "dcaratti@...hat.com" <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation
 by netlink flag

On 2019-10-24 11:23 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 24 Oct 2019 at 10:35, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 04:21:51PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>>> On 2019-10-23 9:04 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>>>

[..]
>>> Jiri complains constantly about all these new per-action TLVs
>>> which are generic. He promised to "fix it all" someday. Jiri i notice
>>> your ack here, what happened? ;->
>>
>> Correct, it would be great. However not sure how exactly to do that now.
>> Do you have some ideas.
>>
 >>
>> But basically this patchset does what was done many many times in the
>> past. I think it was a mistake in the original design not to have some
>> "common attrs" :/ Lesson learned for next interfaces.
> 

Jiri, we have a high level TLV space which can be applied to all
actions. See discussion below with Vlad. At least for this specific
change we can get away from repeating that mistake.

> Jamal, can we reach some conclusion? Do you still suggest to refactor
> the patches to use TCA_ROOT_FLAGS and parse it in act API instead of
> individual actions?
> 

IMO this would certainly help us walk away from having
every action replicate the same attribute with common semantics.
refactoring ->init() to take an extra attribute may look ugly but
is cleaner from a uapi pov. Actions that dont implement the feature
can ignore the extra parameter(s). It doesnt have to be TCA_ROOT_FLAGS
but certainly that high level TLV space is the right place to put it.
WDYT?

cheers,
jamal