RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

[Adrian Bunk]

Considering that NET_CLS_POLICE has been marked as obsolete for more 
than one year, would a patch to remove it be acceptable?

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

[Patrick McHardy]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Considering that NET_CLS_POLICE has been marked as obsolete for more 
> than one year, would a patch to remove it be acceptable?

Looking at this, the only reason I thought why we kept this
option was to keep old iproute binaries working. But struct
tc_police in new kernels is bigger than in old ones (new
refcnt, bindcnt and capab members) and both the old and the
action version of the policer check for an exact size match.
Which means old binaries don't work with either NET_CLS_POLICE
or NET_ACT_POLICE. I'll look into fixing this.

One more thing NET_CLS_POLICE affects is CBQ reshape/reclassify
handling, reshape_fail seems to be completely unhandled without
NET_CLS_POLICE and reclassification looks like it behaves
differently with tc actions. I'm not really sure what the
reshape_fail stuff is used for, but it looks like we would loose
a feature. Jamal?

Re: RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

[Thomas Graf]

* Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> 2006-11-26 14:21
> One more thing NET_CLS_POLICE affects is CBQ reshape/reclassify
> handling, reshape_fail seems to be completely unhandled without
> NET_CLS_POLICE and reclassification looks like it behaves
> differently with tc actions. I'm not really sure what the
> reshape_fail stuff is used for, but it looks like we would loose
> a feature. Jamal?

Yes, this is the reason why it wasn't removed yet. It always
occured to me as a mystery why NET_ACT_POLICE didn't depend
on the same logic inside the qdiscs. That needs to be resolved
first. Also the compat code for the action variant to handle
old policer configurations is horrible and should be done in
a clear way.

Re: RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

[David Miller]

From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:56:14 +0100

> * Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> 2006-11-26 14:21
> > One more thing NET_CLS_POLICE affects is CBQ reshape/reclassify
> > handling, reshape_fail seems to be completely unhandled without
> > NET_CLS_POLICE and reclassification looks like it behaves
> > differently with tc actions. I'm not really sure what the
> > reshape_fail stuff is used for, but it looks like we would loose
> > a feature. Jamal?
> 
> Yes, this is the reason why it wasn't removed yet. It always
> occured to me as a mystery why NET_ACT_POLICE didn't depend
> on the same logic inside the qdiscs. That needs to be resolved
> first. Also the compat code for the action variant to handle
> old policer configurations is horrible and should be done in
> a clear way.

Ok, I'll consider this the definitive statement of the
situation.

Adrian, it's not ready to be deleted yet.

Re: RFC: remove NET_CLS_POLICE?

[Andy Furniss]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Considering that NET_CLS_POLICE has been marked as obsolete for more 
> than one year, would a patch to remove it be acceptable?
> 
> cu
> Adrian
> 

People still request the "2.4 policer" on LARTC as unlike its 
replacement it hooks after prerouting/denat so they can police on local 
addresses.

There is no other way apart from IMQ, though ISTR mention of a meta 
match one day (for ifb).

Andy.