netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 01/12] flow_offload: Introduce offload of HW stats type

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: <20200302192437.wtge3ze775thigzp@salvia>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:24:37 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        leon@...nel.org, michael.chan@...adcom.com, vishal@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        aelior@...vell.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 01/12] flow_offload: Introduce offload of HW
 stats type

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 04:29:32PM +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 02/03/2020 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > 2) explicit counter action, in this case the user specifies explicitly
> >    that it needs a counter in a given position of the rule. This
> >    counter might come before or after the actual action.
>
> But the existing API can already do this, with a gact pipe.  Plus, Jiri's
>  new API will allow specifying a counter on any action (rather than only,
>  implicitly, those which have .stats_update()) should that prove to be
>  necessary.
> 
> I really think the 'explicit counter action' is a solution in search of a
>  problem, let's not add random orthogonality violations.  (Equally if the
>  counter action had been there first, I'd be against adding counters to
>  the other actions.)

It looks to me that you want to restrict the API to tc for no good
_technical_ reason.