From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] flower: add MPLS matching support Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:55:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20170425115459.GA23939@vergenet.net> References: <1492894367-11637-1-git-send-email-benjamin.lahaise@netronome.com> <20170424.143257.1003081554810761464.davem@davemloft.net> <20170424182054.116d1a99@cakuba.netronome.com> <6ae82894-fc8b-2ad9-7dfd-cf74cd6042a1@mojatatu.com> <8f6e7952-b87b-8959-b45a-ab687b69fb1b@mojatatu.com> <20170424190743.4ad24ad1@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim , David Miller , benjamin.lahaise@netronome.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bcrl@kvack.org, Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com ([209.85.128.176]:33273 "EHLO mail-wr0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1176756AbdDYLzJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:55:09 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w50so84089113wrc.0 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170424190743.4ad24ad1@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:07:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:06:08 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > On 17-04-24 10:00 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > On 17-04-24 09:48 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > > > > > > Hrm. maybe I am wrong. > > > Lets say user sets all of the 8 bits in BOS, > > > what does setting > > > key_val->mpls_bos = nla_get_u8 do? > > > > > > Same with the 20 bits for the label in the u32 > > > or 3 bit bits in the u8 tc. > > > > The label and tc are masked - maybe just the BOS > > needs something similar? > > Indeed, good catch! 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. 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.