From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751826AbeCTQkA (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:40:00 -0400 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:59184 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbeCTQjz (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:39:55 -0400 Message-ID: <5AB13953.3000606@ORACLE.COM> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:39:47 +0200 From: Liran Alon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, idan.brown@ORACLE.COM, yuval.shaia@ORACLE.COM Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dev_forward_skb(): Scrub packet's per-netns info only when crossing netns References: <5AB12A0E.2060704@ORACLE.COM> <20180320.120036.1999626754164343704.davem@davemloft.net> <5AB132C5.5010806@ORACLE.COM> <20180320.123401.2138083793709750726.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20180320.123401.2138083793709750726.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8838 signatures=668695 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803200127 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/03/18 18:34, David Miller wrote: > From: Liran Alon > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:11:49 +0200 > >> 1. Do we want to make a flag for every bug that is user-space visible? >> I think there is place for consideration on a per-case basis. I still >> don't see how a user can utilize this behaviour. He is basically >> loosing information (skb->mark) without this patch. > > And maybe people trying to work in this situation have added code to > get the mark set some other way, or to validate that it is in fact > zero after passing through, which we would break with this change. > > If it's set to zero now, it's reasonable to expect it to be zero. > > By changing it to non-zero, different rules and routes will match > and this for sure has potential to break things. > OK. What is your opinion in regards if it's OK to put the flag enabling this "fix" in /proc/sys/net/core? Do you think it's sufficient?