On 04/04/2015 01:11 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 4/3/15 4:04 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 4/3/15 3:54 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
...
I see the point regarding the user option. So, why not adding a flag
to tcf_proto_ops a la `.flags = CLS_REQUIRES_L2` that gets propagated
to tcf_proto, and only ingress_enqueue() would need to test if the
classifier imposes that requirement, so it can push/pull.
ok. that sounds better, but neither tcf_proto nor tcf_proto_ops have
'flags' field today... well, I guess it's time to add flags there.
I don't think it would be a big problem.
Probably add 'flags' to tcf_proto_ops only and do fl->ops->flags in
ingress_enqueue()?
Something along that line, yeah.
Will respin.
nope. will take it back.
that doesn't work, since this check cannot be done in ingress_enqueue(),
because it sees the pointer to first filter only, so both TCQ_F_INGRESS
flag and CLS_REQUIRES_L2 flag need to be checked inside
So on a quick glance, we're calling into cls_bpf_classify() in tp->classify()
(net/sched/cls_api.c +265), so all remaining filters in that list we're
traversing in cls_bpf_classify() are all BPF filters, no?
Have to grab some sleep for now, will be on travel tomorrow. Anyway, worst
case it could still be refactored later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
