On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:22:09AM +0800, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote:
> If a packet needs to be encapsulated towards a local destination IP,
> the packet will be injected into the Rx path as if it was received by
> the target VXLAN device without undergoing encapsulation. If such a
> device does not exist, the packet will be dropped.
>
> There are scenarios where we do not want to drop such packets and
> instead want to let them be encapsulated and locally received by a user
> space program that post-processes these VXLAN packets.
>
> To that end, add a new VXLAN device attribute that controls whether such
> packets are dropped or not. When set ("localbypass") packets are
> dropped and when unset ("nolocalbypass") the packets are encapsulated
> and locally delivered to the listening user space application. Default
> to "localbypass" to maintain existing behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Nikishkin <vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
The code looks fine to me, so:
Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx>
But the commit message needs to be aligned to the code changes made in
this version (which need to be noted the under the '---' [1]). I
suggest:
"
If a packet needs to be encapsulated towards a local destination IP, the
packet will undergo a "local bypass" and be injected into the Rx path as
if it was received by the target VXLAN device without undergoing
encapsulation. If such a device does not exist, the packet will be
dropped.
There are scenarios where we do not want to perform such a bypass, but
instead want the packet to be encapsulated and locally received by a
user space program for post-processing.
To that end, add a new VXLAN device attribute that controls whether a
"local bypass" is performed or not. Default to performing a bypass to
maintain existing behavior.
"
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#the-canonical-patch-format
