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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:27:13 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com> Cc: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, daniel.machon@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, lars.povlsen@...rochip.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:30:10PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > For example this rule: > tc filter add dev eth0 ingress chain 8000000 prio 1 handle 1 protocol all > flower skip_sw dst_mac 00:11:22:33:44:55/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff action trap > action goto chain 8100000 > > This will not be hit until you add this rule: > tc filter add dev eth0 ingress prio 1 handle 2 matchall skip_sw action goto chain 8000000 > > Because this rule will enable the HW. Just to aligned to a SW > implementation of the tc, we don't enable the vcap until there is a rule > in chain 0 that has an action to go to chain 8000000 were it resides > IS2 rules. > > So for example, on a fresh started lan966x the user will add the following > rule: > tc filter add dev eth0 ingress chain 8000000 prio 1 handle 1 protocol > all flower skip_sw dst_mac 00:11:22:33:44:55/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff action > trap action goto chain 8100000 > > He expects this rule not to be hit as there is no rule in chain 0. Now if > PTP is started and it would enable vcap, then suddenly this rule may be > hit. Is it too restrictive to only allow adding offloaded filters to a chain that has a valid goto towards it, coming (perhaps indirectly) from chain 0?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists