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: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:10:00 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>,
 Edward Cree <>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Cc: Yan Zhai <>, Stanislav Fomichev <>,
 Netdev <>, bpf <>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <>, kernel-team
 <>, Jakub Kicinski <>,
 Paolo Abeni <>, Eric Dumazet <>,
 "David S. Miller" <>,
 Jakub Sitnicki <>
Subject: Re: Does skb_metadata_differs really need to stop GRO aggregation?

On 11/29/23 10:52 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Edward Cree <> writes:
>> On 28/11/2023 14:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> I'm not quite sure what should be the semantics of that, though. I.e.,
>>> if you are trying to aggregate two packets that have the flag set, which
>>> packet do you take the value from? What if only one packet has the flag

It would probably make sense if both packets have it set.

>>> set? Or should we instead have a "metadata_xdp_only" flag that just
>>> prevents the skb metadata field from being set entirely?

What would be the use case compared to resetting meta data right before
we return with XDP_PASS?

>> Sounds like what's actually needed is bpf progs inside the GRO engine
>>   to implement the metadata "protocol" prepare and coalesce callbacks?
> Hmm, yes, I guess that would be the most general solution :)

Feels like a potential good fit, agree, although for just solving the
above sth not requiring extra BPF might be nice as well.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists