From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [iproute2-next PATCH v3 2/2] man: tc-flower: Add explanation for range option Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:46:34 -0700 Message-ID: <2192286d-01ff-dea2-1699-defe72f64a95@gmail.com> References: <154232971379.10668.16416943966699679792.stgit@anamhost.jf.intel.com> <154232971889.10668.16009642596079446767.stgit@anamhost.jf.intel.com> <1c2cee31-af86-e285-c9d9-09a3105daa4b@gmail.com> <3000d314-2217-b2e6-230c-c9b41f173f2f@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us To: "Nambiar, Amritha" , stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:33005 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726049AbeKUPTZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:19:25 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z23so3618379plo.0 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:46:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3000d314-2217-b2e6-230c-c9b41f173f2f@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/20/18 9:44 PM, Nambiar, Amritha wrote: > On 11/20/2018 2:56 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> On 11/15/18 5:55 PM, Amritha Nambiar wrote: >>> Add details explaining filtering based on port ranges. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar >>> --- >>> man/man8/tc-flower.8 | 12 ++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/man/man8/tc-flower.8 b/man/man8/tc-flower.8 >>> index 8be8882..768bfa1 100644 >>> --- a/man/man8/tc-flower.8 >>> +++ b/man/man8/tc-flower.8 >>> @@ -56,8 +56,10 @@ flower \- flow based traffic control filter >>> .IR MASKED_IP_TTL " | { " >>> .BR dst_ip " | " src_ip " } " >>> .IR PREFIX " | { " >>> -.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } " >>> -.IR port_number " } | " >>> +.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } { " >>> +.IR port_number " | " >>> +.B range >>> +.IR min_port_number-max_port_number " } | " >>> .B tcp_flags >>> .IR MASKED_TCP_FLAGS " | " >>> .B type >>> @@ -227,6 +229,12 @@ Match on layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only available for >>> .BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp " and " sctp >>> which have to be specified in beforehand. >>> .TP >>> +.BI range " MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE" >>> +Match on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only >>> +available for >>> +.BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp " and " sctp >>> +which have to be specified in beforehand. >>> +.TP >>> .BI tcp_flags " MASKED_TCP_FLAGS" >>> Match on TCP flags represented as 12bit bitfield in in hexadecimal format. >>> A mask may be optionally provided to limit the bits which are matched. A mask >>> >> >> This prints as: >> >> dst_port NUMBER >> src_port NUMBER >> Match on layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. >> Only available for ip_proto values udp, tcp and sctp which have >> to be specified in beforehand. >> >> range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE >> Match on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port >> number. Only available for ip_proto values udp, tcp and sctp >> which have to be specified in beforehand. >> >> ### >> >> That makes it look like range is a standalone option - independent of >> dst_port/src_port. >> >> It seems to me the dst_port / src_port should be updated to: >> >> dst_port {NUMBER | range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE} >> >> with the description updated for both options and indented under >> dst_port / src_port >> > > Okay, will do. > Thinking about this perhaps the 'range' keyword can just be dropped. We do not use it in other places -- e.g., ip rule.