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]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 11:40:56 +0800
From:   wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, 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 5/28/2020 7:35 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> 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.

Yes, Currently the  FLOW_ACTION_MANGLE can distinguish this.

But I think the right way to get nat or non-nat conntrack  is through the

nf_conn->status ?


 
>
> -ed
>