Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] flower: add MPLS matching support

Jamal Hadi Salim
2017-04-25T12:47:03Z

On 17-04-25 07:55 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
[..]
>
> I agree something should be done wrt BOS. If the LABEL and TC are to
> be left as-is then I think a similar treatment of BOS - that is masking it
> - makes sense.
>
> I also agree with statements made earlier in the thread that it is unlikely
> that the unused bits of these attributes will be used - as opposed to a
> bitmask of flag values which seems ripe for re-use for future flags.
>

For your use case, I think you are fine if you just do the mask in the
kernel. A mask to a user value implies "I am ignoring the rest
of these bits - I dont care if you set them "

> I would like to add to the discussion that I think in future it would
> be good to expand the features provided by this patch to support supplying
> a mask as part of the match - as flower supports for other fields such
> as IP addresses. But I think the current scheme of masking out invalid bits
> should also work in conjunction with user-supplied masks.
>

The challenge we have right now is "users do stoopid or malicious
things". So are you going to accept the wrong bitmap + mask?

cheers,
jamal