From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7351C2D6E6F for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771933708; cv=none; b=jaQHQKCntYzo8BtJCbP9nnpaTKG+deB8Tt99VaNlEibhuUwUruTjNEdVDCDIHc//nufQt//7VdsFdw2CyFxBKjsonkkkSO3aLZDsffFMpZvAkF4a6lQTgvbbl4xsXIJgUs4IRsWc4l6dc6L8dnUoG/T+FU0HCKSa4IcfVcqelWA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771933708; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZNXwg8QYndxIfx8MnaP4oxEcPC1FDybZnk3gke92xDw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZuZGIaD3u1sH92jAzERwme/DXU4tK+eU9t/M8RXTWGeIqx9XHXwg+Vnt89+a+2o5JdXadUKSLHLTJ+6nUdVzf78Rk5arKaFXTULkHSyp6zMDE4vj/Cb4SRQVRmC5SasBmsqoU5TbbN7Niq/GyCHAyfnS5IomhxhdYo4WU9zjAQE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=T7+m6hgV; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=ggbLvw7G; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="T7+m6hgV"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="ggbLvw7G" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:48:23 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1771933705; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zAwsw+54U1JkBpviU3oyDxnbrMl/pdFkaDxG0Nxfr+M=; b=T7+m6hgVCtlI/PcRL43f/tFwbq0LPwTU8nOTef89nkvdBaxDEJYHykrHpV4enAKctDulti bqEraanLn8/xdMxg8t1x0Yb1Ae8cvJXPVDOm8OW93fG+9CCOnr5oAwzyUmcky1YyulpGMt Y3ZrVeq8A+UrbUPGkFBdH2px5SViFe89cSWlsv7IEYy+Oi6FnZZft5BVyv3pk32Fg2hVIg MF6nCe/3lz4ykqfUrjm56nFDGgypnyzfWniDDvm8KATweCwOhnwHbMRI5CScNHs1Rv5UZa t33CIgs4s1bKrKugrXX0mLQvS3wF6Ivaq6XZ00ZHWTD2nNEpuOxXiKCYHq3zag== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1771933705; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zAwsw+54U1JkBpviU3oyDxnbrMl/pdFkaDxG0Nxfr+M=; b=ggbLvw7GrYrS9Vu/g9B5g/0cmkIF2QKhHLxXIULUbS050F1C60XH6OsPHnWFBS4xpcnK+s n0qqGuJ0iZFrAHAg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Felix Maurer , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Richard Cochran , Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/2] hsr: Add additional info to send/ receive skbs Message-ID: <20260224114823.jgrNmhz_@linutronix.de> References: <20260204-hsr_ptp-v1-0-b421c69a77da@linutronix.de> <20260217161053.XMFBwFXg@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-18 16:53:23 [-0500], Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > I like the idea of putting the port hint in the ancillary data of the > > message, but I'm not sure where to put in the skb then / how to pass it > > to the hsr interface. Willem's suggestions are worth exploring I think. > > Could you use existing SO_MARK? Optionally per packet with > sock_cmsg_send. And use that in hsr_forward_do if set. > > Or perhaps skb->queue_mapping. For instance with tc BPF, see commit > 74e31ca850c1 ("bpf: add skb->queue_mapping write access from tc > clsact"). So the idea is to replace the custom marking from userland with SO_MARK. If SO_MARK is not conflicting with a possible classifier/ firewall rule then I shouldn't have a problem switching to it. The content would be fix however for the PORT_A/ PORT_B setting. Thanks. Sebastian