From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] act_mirred: use TC_ACT_REINJECT when
 possible
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:30:21 +0200
Message-ID: <20180725133021.GL2164@nanopsycho>
References: <cover.1532437050.git.pabeni@redhat.com>
 <612f6fb5b0cdddcbbc2d99f65b148b7f3b8b9a27.1532437050.git.pabeni@redhat.com>
 <CAM_iQpUiH5gdPp_=GKhP7N8Eu2VVjmGfR6hvXQoaKwyot0JkjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b2edafe358d1015a143b1fa0cf49b180e962c88.camel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:53688 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1728452AbeGYOoa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:44:30 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id s9-v6so6106794wmh.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3b2edafe358d1015a143b1fa0cf49b180e962c88.camel@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:14:32PM CEST, pabeni@redhat.com wrote:
>On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 14:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > +
>> > +               /* let's the caller reinject the packet, if possible */
>> > +               if (skb_at_tc_ingress(skb)) {
>> > +                       res->ingress = want_ingress;
>> > +                       res->qstats = this_cpu_ptr(m->common.cpu_qstats);
>> > +                       return TC_ACT_REINJECT;
>> > +               }
>> 
>> Looks good to me, but here we no longer return user-specified
>> return value here, I am sure it is safe for TC_ACT_STOLEN, but
>> I am not sure if it is safe for other values, like TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY.
>
>I can make it safer, using the no clone path only if tcf_action is
>TC_ACT_STOLEN. That will still cover the relevant use-cases.

That is a good idea. Thanks!


>
>Will do that in v4.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paolo
>