netdev - Re: [question] robust netns association with fib4 lookup

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: <d59000131aeacbe69708dc2c7581dc21758db852.camel@fejes.dev>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:23:40 +0200
From: Ferenc Fejes <ferenc@...es.dev>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kuniyu@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [question] robust netns association with fib4 lookup

On Fri, 2025-04-25 at 11:21 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/25/25 11:17 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > Is there any other way to get the netns info for fib4 lookups? If not,
> > > would it
> > > be worth an RFC to pass the struct net argument to fib_table_lookup as
> > > well, as
> > > is currently done in fib6_table_lookup?
> > 
> > I think it makes sense to make both tracepoints similar and pass the net
> > argument to trace_fib_table_lookup()
> > 
> > > Unfortunately this includes some callers to fib_table_lookup. The
> > > netns id would also be presented in the existing tracepoints ([1] and
> > > [2]). Thanks in advance for any suggestion.
> > 
> > By "netns id" you mean the netns cookie? It seems that some TCP trace
> > events already expose it (see include/trace/events/tcp.h). It would be
> > nice to finally have "perf" filter these FIB events based on netns.
> > 
> > David, any objections?
> 
> none from me. I was looking at the code last night and going to suggest
> either plumbing net all the way down or add net to the fib table struct.
> 

Great, thanks for the check. I'll experiment with these to find out which looks
better or less intrusive. Will CC both of you in RFC/v1.