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 20:28:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617202830.3dd92d46@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43a9b0c7-27b4-733c-d3f2-60ad894e8aeb@gmail.com>
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:06:51 -0600
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/19 8:13 AM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> >>
> >> 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;
>
> This is where you keep losing me. iproute2 has always set NLM_F_MATCH on
> dump requests, so that flag can not be used as a discriminator here.
iproute2 yes, but some other users (I'm not aware of any so I have no
examples) might *very* vaguely follow the RFC and expect consistent
results. That was my only point here. Most likely just a theoretical
one.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
>
> sure, separate fields are needed for the pre-strict mode use case.
Well, they are needed, in general. They both start as true, non-strict
mode doesn't clear them, strict mode clears one. That's how I would do
it.
> So, I take it we are converging on this:
>
> 1. non-strict mode, dump both (FIB entries and exceptions). Userspace
> has to filter. This is the legacy behavior you are trying to restore.
>
> 2. strict mode:
> a. dump only FIB entries if RTM_F_CLONED is not set
> b. dump only exception entries if RTM_F_CLONED is set
>
> Agreed?
Agreed in general, maybe let me know what you think about the
NLM_F_MATCH point above though.
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 18:28 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
2019-06-17 17:06 ` David Ahern
2019-06-17 18:28 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
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=20190617202830.3dd92d46@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).