From: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:52:34 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB42692.9010105@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100401025247.GA19994@gondor.apana.org.au>
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:35:23PM -0400, jamal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:33 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>>> If we're going to change this then we should just add a second
>>> interface field to the selector, rather than trying to overload
>>> the existing one.
>> Do you mean to have a selector->iif/oif? Sure that makes sense - but is
>> a much larger surgery and user space will need to be taught.
>>
>> Did you look at the patch i sent? i tried to retain current behavior
>> except for the input check path. output path was working in classifying
>> with specific netdevs.
>
> OK, I guess the chances of an existing app breaking is slim.
>
> BTW, you should treat FLOW_DIR_FWD as FLOW_DIR_IN.
I think we need iif and oif. The separation is clear in in/fwd policies,
as each is matched properly. But 'out' policies are used for both:
locally generated, and forwarded traffic.
Basically it goes like:
in - for policy_check for traffic that is received locally
fwd - for policy_check for traffic that is forwarded
out - all (local and forwarded) traffic that goes out of box
IMHO, it's slightly confusing that in/fwd is split, but out is not.
But that's the way it works. If you now override the how interface
is checked for 'out' policy, it'll break current behaviour.
- Timo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-01 4:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-31 16:37 [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev jamal
2010-03-31 22:58 ` jamal
2010-04-01 0:33 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 2:35 ` jamal
2010-04-01 2:52 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 4:52 ` Timo Teräs [this message]
2010-04-01 6:01 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:20 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:28 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:32 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:39 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 11:29 ` jamal
2010-04-01 11:47 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 12:00 ` jamal
2010-04-01 12:10 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 12:34 ` jamal
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=4BB42692.9010105@iki.fi \
--to=timo.teras@iki.fi \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.