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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists