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:   Sat, 30 May 2020 10:55:50 +0200
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] TC: Introduce qevents


Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:48 AM Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> So you propose to have further division within the block? To have sort
>> of namespaces within blocks or chains, where depending on the context,
>> only filters in the corresponding namespace are executed?
>
> What I suggest is to let filters (or chain or block) decide where
> they belong to, because I think that fit naturally.

So filters would have this attribute that marks them for execution in
the qevent context?

Does "goto chain" keep this position? I.e. are the executed filters from
the "position" context or not? If they keep the position, then this new
system can be equivalently modeled as simply a block binding point.

If "goto chain" loses the position, that is just a block binding point
and a chain to start on, instead of the default zero.

So introducing the position does not seem to allow us to model anything
that could not be modeled before. But it is a more complicated system.

> What you suggest is to let qdisc's decide where they put filters,
> which looks odd to me.

Ultimately the qdisc decides what qevents to expose. Qevents are closely
tied to the inner workings of a qdisc algorithm, they can't be probed as
modules the way qdiscs, filters and actions can. If a user wishes to
make use of them, they will have to let qdiscs "dictate" where to put
the filters one way or another.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists