From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:39:34 +0200 Message-ID: <57EA4C66.8070907@iogearbox.net> References: <1474550512-7552-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com> <1474550512-7552-5-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com> <20160927.015606.437705429903770747.davem@davemloft.net> <20160927110711.12555f4e@pixies> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com To: Shmulik Ladkani , David Miller Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:50978 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753244AbcI0Kji (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2016 06:39:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160927110711.12555f4e@pixies> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/27/2016 10:07 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:56:06 -0400 (EDT), davem@davemloft.net wrote: >> The discussion on this patch has ventured off into what to do about >> recursion. >> >> But it unclear to me where this specific patch, and this series, >> stands right now. Someone please clear this up for me. > > Status: > - Series adds "ingress redirect/mirror" support > - Positive feedback for the feature > - So far no comments regarding code itself > - Questions raised regarding "recursion handling" > Expressed that existing mirred code (i.e egress redirect) is *already* > loop-unsafe (and also, some non-tc netdev constructs, as exampled by > others). > Discussion then wandered to "recursion handling". Any reason why dev_forward_skb() is not preferred over direct netif_receive_skb() you're using? It would, for example, implicitly assure that pkt_type is always PACKET_HOST, etc. Thanks, Daniel