netdev - Re: [RFC/PATCH net-next v3 8/8] flow_offload: validate flags of filter and actions

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: <428057ce-ccbc-3878-71aa-d5926f11248c@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:13:44 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Baowen Zheng <notifications@...hub.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH net-next v3 8/8] flow_offload: validate flags of
 filter and actions

On 2021-11-03 03:57, Baowen Zheng wrote:
> On November 2, 2021 8:40 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>> On Mon 01 Nov 2021 at 05:29, Baowen Zheng

[..]
>>>
>>> My suggestion was to forgo the skip_sw flag for shared action offload
>>> and, consecutively, remove the validation code, not to add even more
>>> checks. I still don't see a practical case where skip_sw shared action
>>> is useful. But I don't have any strong feelings about this flag, so if
>>> Jamal thinks it is necessary, then fine by me.
>>
>> FWIIW, my feelings are the same as Vlad's.
>>
>> I think these flags add complexity that would be nice to avoid.
>> But if Jamal thinks its necessary, then including the flags implementation is
>> fine by me.
> Thanks Simon. Jamal, do you think it is necessary to keep the skip_sw flag for user to specify
> the action should not run in software?
> 

Just catching up with discussion...
IMO, we need the flag. Oz indicated with requirement to be able to
identify the action with an index. So if a specific action is added
for skip_sw (as standalone or alongside a filter) then it cant be
used for skip_hw. To illustrate using extended example:

#filter 1, skip_sw
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
     skip_sw ip_proto tcp action police blah index 10

#filter 2, skip_hw
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
     skip_hw ip_proto udp action police index 10

Filter2 should be illegal.
And when i dump the actions as so:
tc actions ls action police

For debugability, I should see index 10 clearly marked with
the flag as skip_sw

The other example i gave earlier which showed the sharing
of actions:

#add a policer action and offload it
tc actions add action police skip_sw rate ... index 20
#now add filter1 which is offloaded using offloaded policer
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
     skip_sw ip_proto tcp action police index 20
#add filter2 likewise offloaded
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
     skip_sw ip_proto udp action police index 20

All good and filter 1 and 2 are sharing policer instance with
index 20.

#Now add a filter3 which is s/w only
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
     skip_hw ip_proto icmp action police index 20

filter3 should not be allowed.

cheers,
jamal