netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v3 2/2] tc: implement support for terse dump

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: <ygnhtuug6f02.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 20:03:57 +0200
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:     Vlad Buslov <vlad@...lov.dev>, <dsahern@...il.com>,
        <stephen@...workplumber.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        <jiri@...nulli.us>, <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v3 2/2] tc: implement support for terse dump


On Mon 26 Oct 2020 at 20:01, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 2020-10-26 1:46 p.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>
>> On Mon 26 Oct 2020 at 19:12, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>>> On 2020-10-26 7:28 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat 24 Oct 2020 at 20:40, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that makes sense. I guess introducing something like 'tc action -br
>>>>>> ls ..' mode implemented by means of existing terse flag + new 'also
>>>>>> output action index' flag would achieve that goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. There should be no interest in the cookie here at all. Maybe
>>>>> it could be optional with a flag indication.
>>>>> Have time to cook a patch? I'll taste/test it.
>>>>
>>>> Patch to make cookie in filter terse dump optional? That would break
>>>> existing terse dump users that rely on it (OVS).
>>>
>>> Meant patch for 'tc action -br ls'
>>>
>>> Which by default would not include the cookie.
>>
>> So action-dump-specific flag that causes act api to output action index
>> (via new attribute) and skips cookie?
>>
>
> yeah, something like TCA_ACT_FLAGS_TERSE.
>
> new tcf_action_dump_terse() takes one more field which says to
> include or not the cookies since that is shared code and filters
> can always include it.
> The action index is already present in the passed tc_action
> struct just needs a new TLV.

Sure, I'll try to find time this week.