netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net/mlx5e: add nat support in ct

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: <c9b94b29-5a1a-8812-f9fa-b921a7a9e7c7@solarflare.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 12:35:16 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     <wenxu@...oud.cn>, <paulb@...lanox.com>, <saeedm@...lanox.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net/mlx5e: add nat support in ct_metadata

On 28/05/2020 08:15, wenxu@...oud.cn wrote:
> From: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
>
> Currently all the conntrack entry offfload rules will be add
> in both ct and ct_nat flow table in the mlx5e driver. It is
> not makesense.
>
> This serise provide nat attribute in the ct_metadata action which
> tell driver the rule should add to ct or ct_nat flow table 
I don't understand why changes to the core are needed.
A conntrack entry should be a NAT if and only if it has
 FLOW_ACTION_MANGLE actions.  AIUI this is sufficient information
 to distinguish NAT from non-NAT conntrack, and there's no need
 for an additional bool in ct_metadata.
But it's possible my understanding is wrong.

-ed