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, 7 Oct 2022 08:01:32 -0700
From:   Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
To:     Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>, Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] tests: fix reference output for meter offload stats

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 04:39:25PM +0200, Davide Caratti wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 3:21 PM Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > (+TC folks and netdev@)
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 02:42:56PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> > > On 10/7/22 13:37, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't see how we could achieve this without breaking much of the
> > user experience.
> >
> > >
> > > - or create something like act_count - a dummy action that only
> > >   counts packets, and put it in every datapath action from OVS.
> >
> > This seems the easiest and best way forward IMHO. It's actually the
> > 3rd option below but "on demand", considering that tc will already use
> > the stats of the first action as the flow stats (in
> > tcf_exts_dump_stats()), then we can patch ovs to add such action if a
> > meter is also being used (or perhaps even always, because other
> > actions may also drop packets, and for OVS we would really be at the
> > 3rd option below).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but actually act_gact action with "pipe"
> control action should already do this counting job.

act_gact is so transparent that I never see it/remembers about it :)
Yup, although it's not offloadabe with pipe control actio AFAICT.

  Marcelo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists