netdev - Re: [net-next V2 01/17] net/mlx5: E-Switch, Refactor setting source port

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ygnhr1lqheih.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:31:50 +0200
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
CC:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Mark Bloch" <mbloch@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next V2 01/17] net/mlx5: E-Switch, Refactor setting source
 port


On Mon 08 Feb 2021 at 15:25, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:21:21AM +0200, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat 06 Feb 2021 at 20:13, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I didn't receive the cover letter, so I'm replying on this one. :-)
>> >
>> > This is nice. One thing is not clear to me yet. From the samples on
>> > the cover letter:
>> >
>> > $ tc -s filter show dev enp8s0f0_1 ingress
>> > filter protocol ip pref 4 flower chain 0
>> > filter protocol ip pref 4 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
>> >   dst_mac 0a:40:bd:30:89:99
>> >   src_mac ca:2e:a7:3f:f5:0f
>> >   eth_type ipv4
>> >   ip_tos 0/0x3
>> >   ip_flags nofrag
>> >   in_hw in_hw_count 1
>> >         action order 1: tunnel_key  set
>> >         src_ip 7.7.7.5
>> >         dst_ip 7.7.7.1
>> >         ...
>> >
>> > $ tc -s filter show dev vxlan_sys_4789 ingress
>> > filter protocol ip pref 4 flower chain 0
>> > filter protocol ip pref 4 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
>> >   dst_mac ca:2e:a7:3f:f5:0f
>> >   src_mac 0a:40:bd:30:89:99
>> >   eth_type ipv4
>> >   enc_dst_ip 7.7.7.5
>> >   enc_src_ip 7.7.7.1
>> >   enc_key_id 98
>> >   enc_dst_port 4789
>> >   enc_tos 0
>> >   ...
>> >
>> > These operations imply that 7.7.7.5 is configured on some interface on
>> > the host. Most likely the VF representor itself, as that aids with ARP
>> > resolution. Is that so?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Marcelo
>> 
>> Hi Marcelo,
>> 
>> The tunnel endpoint IP address is configured on VF that is represented
>> by enp8s0f0_0 representor in example rules. The VF is on host.
>
> That's interesting and odd. The VF would be isolated by a netns and
> not be visible by whoever is administrating the VF representor. Some
> cooperation between the two entities (host and container, say) is
> needed then, right? Because the host needs to know the endpoint IP
> address that the container will be using, and vice-versa. If so, why
> not offload the tunnel actions via the VF itself and avoid this need
> for cooperation? Container privileges maybe?
>
> Thx,
> Marcelo

As I wrote in previous email, tunnel endpoint VF is on host (not in
namespace/container, VM, etc.).