netdev - Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: openvswitch: add drop 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 15:06:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>
Cc: Eric Garver <eric@...ver.life>, Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Adrian Moreno <amorenoz@...hat.com>, Eelco Chaudron
 <echaudro@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: openvswitch: add drop
 action

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:04:36 +0200 Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >> That already exists, right? Johannes added it in the last release for WiFi.  
> > 
> > I'm not sure.  The SKB_DROP_REASON_SUBSYS_MAC80211_UNUSABLE behaves similarly
> > to that on a surface.  However, looking closer, any value that can be passed
> > into ieee80211_rx_handlers_result() and ends up in the kfree_skb_reason() is
> > kind of defined in net/mac80211/drop.h, unless I'm missing something (very
> > possible, because I don't really know wifi code).
> > 
> > The difference, I guess, is that for openvswitch values will be provided by
> > the userpsace application via netlink interface.  It'll be just a number not
> > defined anywhere in the kernel.  Only the subsystem itself will be defined
> > in order to occupy the range.  Garbage in, same garbage out, from the kernel's
> > perspective.  
> 
> To be clear, I think, not defining them in this particular case is better.
> Definition of every reason that userspace can come up with will add extra
> uAPI maintenance cost/issues with no practical benefits.  Values are not
> going to be used for anything outside reporting a drop reason and subsystem
> offset is not part of uAPI anyway.

Ah, I see. No, please don't stuff user space defined values into 
the drop reason. The reasons are for debugging the kernel stack 
itself. IOW it'd be abuse not reuse.