netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlxsw: Add support for RED qevent "mark"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 24 Jan 2021 10:42:05 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, petrm@...dia.com,
        jiri@...dia.com, amcohen@...dia.com, mlxsw@...dia.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlxsw: Add support for RED qevent "mark"

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:55:27AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:28:02 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation. I feel more and more convinced now that
> > > we should have TC_ACT_TRAP_MIRROR and the devlink trap should only 
> > > be on/off :S Current model of "if ACT_TRAP consult devlink for trap
> > > configuration" is impossible to model in SW since it doesn't have a
> > > equivalent of devlink traps. Or we need that equivalent..  
> > 
> > Wait, the current model is not "if ACT_TRAP consult devlink for trap
> > configuration". 'ecn_mark' action is always 'trap' ('mirror' in v2) and
> > can't be changed. Such packets can always be sent to the CPU, but the
> > decision of whether to send them or not is based on the presence of tc
> > filters attached to RED's 'mark' qevent with TC_ACT_TRAP
> > (TC_ACT_TRAP_MIRROR in v2).
> 
> I see, missed that, but I think my point conceptually stands, right?
> Part of forwarding behavior was (in v1) only expressed in control 
> plane (devlink) not dataplane (tc).

I don't think so? The action was set to 'trap' in both devlink and tc.

>  
> > I believe that with the proposed changes in v2 it should be perfectly
> > clear that ECN marked packets are forwarded in hardware and a copy is
> > sent to the CPU.
> 
> Yup, sounds good.

Thanks!