From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share filter block instances Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:08:13 -0700 Message-ID: <19ee8268-a93c-8c99-6005-b521a0ef346d@gmail.com> References: <20171213151038.29665-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <04bcfa37-a74e-9e2f-3ac1-7ed8e63e13df@gmail.com> <20171213170757.GJ2031@nanopsycho> <90bf2450-a21c-9f70-2dc3-b147d0c40740@gmail.com> <20171213173948.GK2031@nanopsycho> <3d3f57ae-23b7-6389-7276-3019f57dce01@gmail.com> <20171213184241.GL2031@nanopsycho> <20171213164652.5e5dfa2b@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, matanb@mellanox.com, leonro@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net To: Jakub Kicinski , Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:34462 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756067AbdLORIQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:08:16 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id a90so6577052pfk.1 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:08:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171213164652.5e5dfa2b@cakuba.netronome.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/13/17 5:46 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:42:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>>> I plan to do it as a follow-up patch. But this is how things are done >>>>>> now and have to continue to work. >>>>> >>>>> Why is that? You are introducing the notion of a shared block with this >>>>> patch set. What is the legacy "how things are done now" you are >>>>> referring to? >>>> >>>> Well, the filter add/del should just work no matter if the block behind is >>>> shared or not. >>> >>> My argument is that modifying a shared block instance via a dev should >>> not be allowed. Those changes should only be allowed via the shared >>> block. So if a user puts adds a shared block to the device and then >>> attempts to add a filter via the device it should not be allowed. >> >> I don't see why. The handle is the qdisc here. > > If you look at it from Linux perspective that makes sense. For people > coming from switching world the fact that we use qdiscs as a handle for > ACL blocks is an implementation detail.. is that the argument here? > In a sense, yes. When configuring the filter, the primary command line argument is the device. The qdisc is then derived from it and is an implementation detail.