netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: sched: Add a trap-and-forward action

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, 9 Apr 2021 13:03:19 +0200
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:     Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: sched: Add a trap-and-forward action


Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> writes:

> I am concerned about adding new opcodes which only make sense if you
> offload (or make sense only if you are running in s/w).
>
> Those opcodes are intended to be generic abstractions so the dispatcher
> can decide what to do next. Adding things that are specific only
> to scenarios of hardware offload removes that opaqueness.
> I must have missed the discussion on ACT_TRAP because it is the
> same issue there i.e shouldnt be an opcode. For details see:
> https://people.netfilter.org/pablo/netdev0.1/papers/Linux-Traffic-Control-Classifier-Action-Subsystem-Architecture.pdf

Trap has been in since 4.13, so 2017ish. It's done and dusted at this
point.

> IMO:
> It seems to me there are two actions here encapsulated in one.
> The first is to "trap" and the second is to "drop".
>
> This is no different semantically than say "mirror and drop"
> offload being enunciated by "skip_sw".
>
> Does the spectrum not support multiple actions?
> e.g with a policy like:
>  match blah action trap action drop skip_sw

Trap drops implicitly. We need a "trap, but don't drop". Expressed in
terms of existing actions it would be "mirred egress redirect dev
$cpu_port". But how to express $cpu_port except again by a HW-specific
magic token I don't know.