netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode

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: <576a4a96-861b-6a86-b059-6621a22d191c@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:03:08 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4
 mode



On 10/29/19 11:35 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:

> Hi Matteo,
> Wouldn't it be more useful and simpler to use some field to choose the slave (override the hash
> completely) in a deterministic way from user-space ?
> For example the mark can be interpreted as a slave id in the bonding (should be
> optional, to avoid breaking existing setups). ping already supports -m and
> anything else can set it, this way it can be used to do monitoring for a specific
> slave with any protocol and would be a much simpler change.
> User-space can then implement any logic for the monitoring case and as a minor bonus
> can monitor the slaves in parallel. And the opposite as well - if people don't want
> these balanced for some reason, they wouldn't enable it.
> 

I kind of agree giving user more control. But I do not believe we need to use the mark
(this might be already used by other layers)

TCP uses sk->sk_hash to feed skb->hash.

Anything using skb_set_owner_w() is also using sk->sk_hash if set.

So presumably we could add a generic SO_TXHASH socket option to let user space
read/set this field.