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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aAsPamW5qmCp+O3e@mev-dev.igk.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 06:28:26 +0200
From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
	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, Apr 24, 2025 at 03:26:38PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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?

Sure, I will do that. I am going for a two week vacation from today, so it
can take some time for v1.

Thanks