netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/9] net: devmem: ksft: add 5 tuple FS support

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: <CAHS8izOKZBtDQT7zjd81v8X5sAXB0NAsL8iXYg3_0zurwF1WhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 10:32:47 -0700
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, 
	Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, 
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, sdf@...ichev.me, 
	ap420073@...il.com, praan@...gle.com, shivajikant@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/9] net: devmem: ksft: add 5 tuple FS support

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > ncdevmem supports drivers that are limited to either 3-tuple or 5-tuple
> > FS support, but the ksft is currently 3-tuple only. Support drivers that
> > have 5-tuple FS supported by adding a ksft arg.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  .../testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/devmem.py  | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/devmem.py b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/devmem.py
> > index 39b5241463aa..40fe5b525d51 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/devmem.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/devmem.py
> > @@ -21,14 +21,27 @@ def require_devmem(cfg):
> >  def check_rx(cfg, ipver) -> None:
> >      require_devmem(cfg)
> >
> > +    fs_5_tuple = False
> > +    if "FLOW_STEERING_5_TUPLE" in cfg.env:
> > +        fs_5_tuple = cfg.env["FLOW_STEERING_5_TUPLE"]
>
> I wonder if we can transparently handle it in ncdevmem: if -c is passed,
> try installing 3-tuple rule, and if it fails, try 5-tuple one. This
> should work without any user input / extra environment variable.
>

This seems like a good idea, yes, but I think install a 5-tuple one
first, and if that fails, try a 3-tuple one? 5-tuple rules are more
specific and should take precedence when the driver supports both. It
doesn't really matter but the 3-tuple one can match unintended flows.

-- 
Thanks,
Mina