netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] rtnetlink: add RTNH_F_REJECT

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: <ff405eae-21d9-35f4-1397-b6f9a29a57ff@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:02:37 -0800
From:   Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        "Pavel Tikhomirov" <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] rtnetlink: add RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK


On 11/11/21 2:19 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> [ cc roopa]
>
> On 11/11/21 12:23 PM, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:13 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/11/21 9:02 AM, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>>>> index 5888492a5257..c15e591e5d25 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
>>>> @@ -417,6 +417,9 @@ struct rtnexthop {
>>>>   #define RTNH_COMPARE_MASK    (RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN | \
>>>>                                 RTNH_F_OFFLOAD | RTNH_F_TRAP)
>>>>
>>>> +/* these flags can't be set by the userspace */
>>>> +#define RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK   (RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN)
>>>> +
>>>>   /* Macros to handle hexthops */
>>> Userspace can not set any of the flags in RTNH_COMPARE_MASK.
>> Hi David,
>>
>> thanks! So, I have to prepare a patch which fixes current checks for rtnh_flags
>> against RTNH_COMPARE_MASK. So, there is no need to introduce a separate
>> RTNH_F_REJECT_MASK.
>> Am I right?
>>
> Added Roopa to double check if Cumulus relies on this for their switchd.
>
> If that answer is no, then there is no need for a new mask.
>

yes, these flags are already exposed to userspace and we do use it.

We have also considered optimizations where routing daemons set OFFLOAD 
and drivers clear it when offload fails.

I wont be surprised if other open network os distributions are also 
using it.


Thanks for the headsup David.