From: jamal <hadi@cyberus•ca>
To: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki•fi>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor•apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft•net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash•net>,
netdev@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:34:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1270125256.26743.195.camel@bigi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB48D1C.80205@iki.fi>
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 15:10 +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
> On entry to ip_forward the routing decision has already been made.
> Both oif and iif are valid on entry.
ah, ok - yes;->
> Currently policy_check() uses oif for SPD matching.
indeed it does.
So i can see the dilemma with fwd path. It would be nice
to be able to classify on both iif and oif.
So that leaves only IN direction. If i only worried about that
and use skb->skb_iif then at least i wont be breaking the semantics
for FWD/OUT (i.e the patch without check for FWD).
That would make semantics for selector ifindex as follows:
table current patch
----------------------------
OUT fl->oif fl->oif
FWD fl->oif fl->oif
IN N/A skb->skb_iif
By "N/A" it means really you cant set it. If you do it doesnt work.
cheers,
jamal
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-01 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-31 16:37 [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev jamal
2010-03-31 22:58 ` jamal
2010-04-01 0:33 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 2:35 ` jamal
2010-04-01 2:52 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 4:52 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:01 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:20 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:28 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 6:32 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 6:39 ` Herbert Xu
2010-04-01 11:29 ` jamal
2010-04-01 11:47 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 12:00 ` jamal
2010-04-01 12:10 ` Timo Teräs
2010-04-01 12:34 ` jamal [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1270125256.26743.195.camel@bigi \
--to=hadi@cyberus$(echo .)ca \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=herbert@gondor$(echo .)apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=timo.teras@iki$(echo .)fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox