Re: [LARTC] Strange behavior deleting filters

[Andre Correa <andre.correa@pobox.com>]

The matter here is not really about using parent or handle (wich I'm 
still not confortable with), but it is about the way a filter should be 
deleted.

In situations like mine I cannot just delete filters by parent, because 
parent qdiscs have dozens of child classes each one with a filter 
poiting to it. If I have to "disable a customer", for example, I need to 
delete its classes and consequently its filters, and today it is not 
possible.

Using Rodrigo's trick with prio is doing the job, but doesn't look like 
the right way to do it.

I'm not involved in tc, HTB or any other kernel-related development but 
in my user point of view the sintax to add and delete filters should be 
the same and when I delete a filter just that specific filter should be 
delete, not all those that have the same prio. Maybe there was some 
important problem during development that made it difficult or 
impossible to be this way, we don't know yet...

Just getting back to the basic sitation, when I try (supose classes 1:1 
and 1:2 exist):

tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle ::10 u32
match ip src 10.10.10.10 flowid 1:1
tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle ::11 u32
match ip src 10.10.10.11 flowid 1:2

and then:

tc filter del dev eth1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle ::11

both filter are deleted... and it is supposed to delete just the second 
filter. With or without handle the same result is reproducible in my 
setup and in Rodrigo's too. Anybody else have the same behavior or it is 
just us? My kernel is 2.4.23.

Anyway filters are still a bit difficult to fully understand. There are 
too many undocumented options that should be described in 
Advanced-Routing-HOWTO or somewhere else...

Where is the active development of tc going on for 2.4? May we report it 
as a bug there?

Is the Advanced-Routing-Howto being updated? I would like to help with 
it... tc is doing such a good job here that I want to give something 
back to the community...

tks in advance...

Andre



Rodrigo P. Telles wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Lars,
> 
> It's about the discussion of "deleting filter rules", and this "method" 
> (using
> handle) was explaned by Patrick (see the list history).
> 
> Telles
> 
> Lars Landmark wrote:
> | Hi;
> |
> | no clue :-(
> | May I ask why you are using "handle" and not "parent" since HTB is used?
> | And what eventually are the differences?
> |
> | Lars
> |
> |
> |
> |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> |>Hash: SHA1
> |>
> |>Lars,
> |>
> |>I knew that (I use this form, but with handle, it doesn't work), but 
> if what you
> |>said is truth, the folowing command would have work:
> |>
> |>tc filter del dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle ::12 u32 
> match ip
> |>src 10.10.10.10 flowid 1:12
> |>RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
> |>
> |>|>tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle ::12 u32 
> match ip
> |>src 10.10.10.11 flowid 1:12
> |>
> |>What you thing about that ?
> |>
> |>Telles
> |>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/