netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 09/12] virtio_net: Implement IPv4 ethtool flow rules

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: <e7b5bb24-0ea0-4b73-8548-3b67872a742d@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 01:17:28 -0600
From: Dan Jurgens <danielj@...dia.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jasowang@...hat.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, parav@...dia.com, shshitrit@...dia.com,
 yohadt@...dia.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, eperezma@...hat.com,
 jgg@...pe.ca, kevin.tian@...el.com, kuba@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 09/12] virtio_net: Implement IPv4 ethtool
 flow rules

On 11/19/25 1:06 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:03:36AM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
>> On 11/18/25 3:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:38:59AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
>>>> Add support for IP_USER type rules from ethtool.
>>>>
>>>> +static void parse_ip4(struct iphdr *mask, struct iphdr *key,
>>>> +		      const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	const struct ethtool_usrip4_spec *l3_mask = &fs->m_u.usr_ip4_spec;
>>>> +	const struct ethtool_usrip4_spec *l3_val  = &fs->h_u.usr_ip4_spec;
>>>> +
>>>> +	mask->saddr = l3_mask->ip4src;
>>>> +	mask->daddr = l3_mask->ip4dst;
>>>> +	key->saddr = l3_val->ip4src;
>>>> +	key->daddr = l3_val->ip4dst;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (l3_mask->proto) {
>>>
>>> you seem to check mask for proto here but the ethtool_usrip4_spec doc
>>> seems to say the mask for proto must be 0. 
>>>
>>>
>>> what gives?
>>>
>>
>> Then for user_ip flows ethtool should provide 0 as the mask, and based
>> on your comment below I'm verifying that.
> 
> but if it does then how did this patch work in your testing?

Why wouldn't it work? For IP only flows the proto field is not relevant.
It only filters on IP address, not port.

> 
>> I can move this hunk to the TCP/UDP patch if you prefer.
> 
> 
> not sure what you mean so I can't comment on that.
> generally it's best to add code in the same patch where
> it's used - easier to review.
> 

the l3_mask->proto will only be set for TCP/UDP flows.