netdev - Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: add TTL decrement action

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:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:19:51 -0800
From:   Ben Pfaff <blp@....org>
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bindiya Kurle <bindiyakurle@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: add TTL decrement action

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:46:12PM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:00 PM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:25:18AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > New action to decrement TTL instead of setting it to a fixed value.
> > > This action will decrement the TTL and, in case of expired TTL, send the
> > > packet to userspace via output_userspace() to take care of it.
> > >
> > > Supports both IPv4 and IPv6 via the ttl and hop_limit fields, respectively.
> > >
> >
> > Usually OVS achieves this behaviour by matching on the TTL and
> > setting it to the desired value, pre-calculated as TTL -1.
> > With that in mind could you explain the motivation for this
> > change?
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the problem is that OVS creates a flow for each ttl it see. I can let
> vswitchd create 255 flows with like this:
> 
> $ for i in {2..255}; do ping 192.168.0.2 -t $i -c1 -w1 &>/dev/null & done
> $ ovs-dpctl dump-flows |fgrep -c 'set(ipv4(ttl'
> 255

Sure, you can easily invent a situation.  In real traffic there's not
usually such a variety of TTLs for a flow that matches on the number of
fields that OVS usually needs to match.  Do you see a real problem given
actual traffic in practice?