Re: [PATCH net-next,v3 0/9] netfilter: flowtable bridge and vlan enhancements

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

Hi Jakub,

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 11:23:48AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:56:21 +0100 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > Please gather some review tags from senior netdev developers. I don't
> > > feel confident enough to apply this as 100% my own decision.  
> > 
> > Fair enough.
> > 
> > This requirement for very specific Netfilter infrastructure which does
> > not affect any other Networking subsystem sounds new to me.
> 
> You mean me asking for reviews from other senior folks when I don't
> feel good about some code? I've asked others the same thing in the
> past, e.g. Paolo for his RPS thing.

No, I'm perfectly fine with peer review.

Note that I am sending this to net-next as a patchset (not as a PR)
_only_ because this is adding a new .ndo_fill_forward_path to
netdev_ops.

That's the only thing that is relevant to the Netdev core
infrastructure IMO, and this new .ndo that is private, not exposed to
userspace.

Let's have a look at the diffstats again:

 include/linux/netdevice.h                     |  35 +++
 include/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table.h         |  43 +++-
 net/8021q/vlan_dev.c                          |  15 ++
 net/bridge/br_device.c                        |  27 +++
 net/core/dev.c                                |  46 ++++
 net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_core.c            |  51 +++--
 net/netfilter/nf_flow_table_ip.c              | 200 ++++++++++++++----
 net/netfilter/nft_flow_offload.c              | 159 +++++++++++++-
 .../selftests/netfilter/nft_flowtable.sh      |  82 +++++++
 9 files changed, 598 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)

So this is adding _minimal_ changes to the NetDev infrastructure. Most
of the code is an extension to the flowtable Netfilter infrastructure.
And the flowtable is a cache since its conception.

I am adding the .ndo indirection to avoid the dependencies with
Netfilter modules, e.g. Netfilter could use direct reference to bridge
function, but that would pull in bridge modules.

> > What senior developers specifically you would like I should poke to
> > get an acknowledgement on this to get this accepted of your
> > preference?
> 
> I don't want to make a list. Maybe netconf attendees are a safe bet?

I have no idea who to ask to, traditionally it's the NetDev maintainer
(AFAIK it's only you at this stage) that have the last word on
something to get this merged.

I consider all developers that have reviewed this patchset to be
senior developers.