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, 6 Oct 2023 19:00:00 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <>
To: Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <>, Victor Nogueira <>,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] net/sched: Introduce tc block ports
 tracking and use

On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 6:25 PM Jakub Kicinski <> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:06:45 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > I don't understand the need for configuration less here. You don't have
> > > it for the rest of the actions. Why this is special?
> +1, FWIW

We dont have any rule that says all actions MUST have parameters ;->
There is nothing speacial about any action that doesnt have a

> > It is not needed really. Think of an L2 switch - the broadcast action
> > is to send to all ports but self.
> We do have an implementation of an L2 switch already, what's the use
> case which necessitates this new action / functionality?

It is not an L2 switch - the L2 example switch was what came to mind
of something that does a broadcast (it doesnt depend on MAC addresses
for example). Could have called it a hub. Ex: you could match on many
different header fields or skb metadata, then first modify the packet
using NAT, etc and then "blockcast" it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists