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  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, 27 Apr 2020 15:08:55 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adhipati Blambangan <adhipati@...a.io>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: xdp: account for layer 3 packets in generic
 skb handler

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:00 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:52:54 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:42:08 -0600 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > A user reported that packets from wireguard were possibly ignored by XDP
> > > [1]. Apparently, the generic skb xdp handler path seems to assume that
> > > packets will always have an ethernet header, which really isn't always
> > > the case for layer 3 packets, which are produced by multiple drivers.
> > > This patch fixes the oversight. If the mac_len is 0, then we assume
> > > that it's a layer 3 packet, and in that case prepend a pseudo ethhdr to
> > > the packet whose h_proto is copied from skb->protocol, which will have
> > > the appropriate v4 or v6 ethertype. This allows us to keep XDP programs'
> > > assumption correct about packets always having that ethernet header, so
> > > that existing code doesn't break, while still allowing layer 3 devices
> > > to use the generic XDP handler.
> >
> > Is this going to work correctly with XDP_TX? presumably wireguard
> > doesn't want the ethernet L2 on egress, either? And what about
> > redirects?
> >
> > I'm not sure we can paper over the L2 differences between interfaces.
> > Isn't user supposed to know what interface the program is attached to?
> > I believe that's the case for cls_bpf ingress, right?
>
> In general we should also ask ourselves if supporting XDPgeneric on
> software interfaces isn't just pointless code bloat, and it wouldn't
> be better to let XDP remain clearly tied to the in-driver native use
> case.

Seems nice to be able to use XDP everywhere as a means of packet
processing without context switch, right?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists