netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Luuk Paulussen <Luuk.Paulussen@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Subject: Increasing skb->mark size
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:32:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1448397144.14854.27.camel@mattb-dl> (raw)

Hello,

Currently we have a number of router features (firewall, QoS, etc)
making use of ip tables and connection tracking. We do this by giving
each feature a certain area of skb->mark (say 8 bits each). This allows
us to simply restore skb->mark (using connection tracking) for packets
in a flow using the logic below.

Our software logic is:

1. The first packet in a flow traverses through ip-tables where
each feature has set rules to mark their section of skb->mark. 

2. We then store the mark into connmark. 

3. Then as each packet in the flow hits ip tables the first rule in
ip-tables simply restores the connmark and the packet goes to egress.

Up until now this has worked very well for us. However since skb->mark
is only 32 bits we have quickly run out of bits for marking. 

This leaves us with two options:
 - Don't allow all features to be enabled at once (i.e. multiple
features share the same area of skb->mark). This is not ideal.

 - Increase the size of skb->mark (or another solution such as adding an
additional field into sk_buff for marking).

Hopefully what I have explained above is a strong example of where
skb->mark is no longer large enough on routers using connection tracking
to achieve superior performance. 

I'm emailing this list for feedback on the feasibility of increasing
skb->mark or adding a new field for marking. Perhaps this extension
could be done under a new CONFIG option. Perhaps there are other ways we
could achieve the desired behaviour?

Thanks,
Matt

             reply	other threads:[~2015-11-24 20:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-24 20:32 Matt Bennett [this message]
2015-11-24 20:36 ` Increasing skb->mark size Florian Westphal
2015-11-24 20:56   ` Matt Bennett
2015-11-26  4:44     ` Luuk Paulussen
2015-11-30  2:08     ` Florian Westphal
2015-11-30  2:10       ` Lorenzo Colitti
2015-11-30  2:24         ` Florian Westphal
2015-11-29  8:37 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2015-11-30  1:58   ` David Miller
2015-11-30  4:10     ` Luuk Paulussen
2015-11-30  4:49       ` David Miller
2015-12-01  0:12         ` Luuk Paulussen
2015-12-01  3:55           ` David Miller
2015-12-01  4:57             ` Luuk Paulussen
2015-12-01 19:13   ` Andi Kleen
2015-12-01 22:09     ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-12-02  2:58       ` Andi Kleen
2015-12-02  5:42         ` David Ahern
2015-12-02 17:29           ` David Miller
2015-12-02  3:57     ` Lorenzo Colitti

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1448397144.14854.27.camel@mattb-dl \
    --to=matt.bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz \
    --cc=Luuk.Paulussen@alliedtelesis.co.nz \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).