netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/3] pfcp: Convert pfcp_net_exit() to ->exit

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: <20250424152638.5915c020@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:26:38 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima
 <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima
 <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, marcin.szycik@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/3] pfcp: Convert pfcp_net_exit() to
 ->exit_rtnl().

On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 06:40:36 +0200 Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> > > Uh, I remember that we used it to add tc filter. Maybe we can fix it?  
> > 
> > If it really was broken for over a year and nobody noticed -
> > my preference would be to delete it. I don't think you need
> > an actual tunnel dev to add TC filters?  
> 
> Our approach was to follow scheme from exsisting ones.
> For example, vxlan filter:
> tc filter add dev vxlan ingress protocol ip ...
> PFCP filter:
> tc filter add dev pfcp ingress protocol ip ...
> 
> so in this case we need sth to point and pass the information that this
> tunnel is PFCP. If you have an idea how to do it without actual tunnel
> we are willing to implement it. AFAIR simple matching on specific port
> number isn't good solution as tunnel specific fields can't be passed in
> such scenario.

You're right, not sure what I was thinking.. probably about 
the offloaded flow.

Could you please fix this and provide a selftests for offloaded 
and non-offloaded operation? To make sure this code is exercised?