netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] net/sched: Introduce tc block ports tracking and use

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]

Message-ID: <CAM0EoM=LMQu5ae53WEE5Giz3z4u87rP+R4skEmUKD5dRFh5q7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 19:00:00 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Victor Nogueira <victor@...atatu.com>, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, 
	davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	mleitner@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com, 
	pctammela@...atatu.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...atatu.com
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 <kuba@...nel.org> 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
parameter.

> > 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.

cheers,
jamal