From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Jianlin Shi <jishi@redhat.com>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Rename ip_valid_fib_dump_req, provide non-strict version
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:13:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617161333.29cab4d7@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3527e70-15aa-abf8-4451-91e5bae4f1ab@gmail.com>
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:38:54 -0600
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/19 2:04 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > We could do this:
> >
> > - strict checking enabled (iproute2 >= 5.0.0):
> > - in inet{,6}_dump_fib(): if NLM_F_MATCH is set, set
> > filter->filter_set in any case
> >
> > - in fn_trie_dump_leaf() and rt6_dump_route(): use filter->filter_set
> > to decide if we want to filter depending on RTM_F_CLONED being
> > set/unset. If other filters (rt_type, dev, protocol) are not set,
> > they are still wildcards (existing implementation)
> >
> > - no strict checking (iproute2 < 5.0.0):
> > - we can't filter consistently, so apply no filters at all: dump all
> > the routes (filter->filter_set not set), cached and uncached. That
> > means more netlink messages, but no spam as iproute2 filters them
> > anyway, and list/flush cache commands work again.
> >
> > I would drop 1/8, turn 2/8 and 6/8 into a straightforward:
> >
> > if (cb->strict_check) {
> > err = ip_valid_fib_dump_req(net, nlh, &filter, cb);
> > if (err < 0)
> > return err;
> > + if (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_MATCH)
> > + filter.filter_set = 1;
> > } else if (nlmsg_len(nlh) >= sizeof(struct rtmsg)) {
> > struct rtmsg *rtm = nlmsg_data(nlh);
> >
> > and other patches remain the same.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> With strict checking (5.0 and forward):
> - RTM_F_CLONED NOT set means dump only FIB entries
> - RTM_F_CLONED set means dump only exceptions
Okay. Should we really ignore the RFC and NLM_F_MATCH though? If we add
field(s) to the filter, it comes almost for free, something like:
if (nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_MATCH)
filter->dump_exceptions = rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_CLONED;
instead of:
filter->dump_exceptions = rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_CLONED;
> Without strict checking (old iproute2 on any kernel):
> - dump all, userspace has to sort
>
> Kernel side this can be handled with new field, dump_exceptions, in the
> filter that defaults to true and then is reset in the strict path if the
> flag is not set.
I guess we need to add two fields, we'll need a 'dump_routes' too.
Otherwise, the dump functions can't distinguish between the three cases
('no strict checking', 'strict checking and RTM_F_CLONED', 'strict
checking and no RTM_F_CLONED'). How would you do this with a single
additional field?
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-15 1:32 [PATCH net v4 0/8] Fix listing (IPv4, IPv6) and flushing (IPv6) of cached route exceptions Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 1/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Rename ip_valid_fib_dump_req, provide non-strict version Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 2:54 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:13 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 3:16 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:27 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-16 20:04 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:38 ` David Ahern
2019-06-17 14:13 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
2019-06-17 17:06 ` David Ahern
2019-06-17 18:28 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:18 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 2/8] ipv4: Honour NLM_F_MATCH, make semantics of NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK consistent Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 3:13 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 3:23 ` Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 13:29 ` David Ahern
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH net v4 3/8] ipv4/fib_frontend: Allow RTM_F_CLONED flag to be used for filtering Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 4/8] ipv4: Dump routed caches if requested Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 5/8] Revert "net/ipv6: Bail early if user only wants cloned entries" Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 6/8] ipv6: Honour NLM_F_MATCH, make semantics of NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK consistent Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 7/8] ipv6: Dump route exceptions too in rt6_dump_route() Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:32 ` [PATCH 8/8] ip6_fib: Don't discard nodes with valid routing information in fib6_locate_1() Stefano Brivio
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=20190617161333.29cab4d7@redhat.com \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jishi@redhat.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).