Hi David and Menglong, On 2/25/22 7:48 AM, David Ahern wrote: > On 2/24/22 10:57 PM, Menglong Dong wrote: >>>> >>>> For tun unique filters, how about using a shortened version of the ioctl >>>> name used to set the filter. >>>> >>> >>> Although TUN is widely used in virtualization environment, it is only one of >>> many drivers. I prefer to not introduce a reason that can be used only by a >>> specific driver. >>> >>> In order to make it more generic and more re-usable (e.g., perhaps people may >>> add ebpf filter to TAP driver as well), how about we create below reasons. >>> >>> SKB_DROP_REASON_DEV_FILTER, /* dropped by filter attached to >>> * or directly implemented by a >>> * specific driver >>> */ >>> SKB_DROP_REASON_BPF_DEV, /* dropped by bpf directly >>> * attached to a specific device, >>> * e.g., via TUNSETFILTEREBPF >>> */ >> >> Aren't DEV_FILTER and BPF_DEV too generic? eBPF atached to netdev can >> be many kinds, such as XDP, TC, etc. > > yes. > >> >> I think that use TAP_TXFILTER instaed of DEV_FILTER maybe better? >> and TAP_FILTER->BPF_DEV. Make them similar to the name in >> __tun_chr_ioctl() may be easier for user to understand. >> > > in this case given the unique attach points and API tap in the name > seems more appropriate > Thank you very much for the suggestions. I will add below in the next version. SKB_DROP_REASON_TAP_TXFILTER, /* dropped by tx filter implemented at * tun/tap, e.g., check_filter() */ SKB_DROP_REASON_TAP_FILTER, /* dropped by (ebpf) filter directly * attached to tun/tap, e.g., via * TUNSETFILTEREBPF */ Dongli Zhang
