From: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki•fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor•apana.org.au>
Cc: jamal <hadi@cyberus•ca>, "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 07:52:34 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB42692.9010105@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100401025247.GA19994@gondor.apana.org.au>
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:35:23PM -0400, jamal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:33 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>>> If we're going to change this then we should just add a second
>>> interface field to the selector, rather than trying to overload
>>> the existing one.
>> Do you mean to have a selector->iif/oif? Sure that makes sense - but is
>> a much larger surgery and user space will need to be taught.
>>
>> Did you look at the patch i sent? i tried to retain current behavior
>> except for the input check path. output path was working in classifying
>> with specific netdevs.
>
> OK, I guess the chances of an existing app breaking is slim.
>
> BTW, you should treat FLOW_DIR_FWD as FLOW_DIR_IN.
I think we need iif and oif. The separation is clear in in/fwd policies,
as each is matched properly. But 'out' policies are used for both:
locally generated, and forwarded traffic.
Basically it goes like:
in - for policy_check for traffic that is received locally
fwd - for policy_check for traffic that is forwarded
out - all (local and forwarded) traffic that goes out of box
IMHO, it's slightly confusing that in/fwd is split, but out is not.
But that's the way it works. If you now override the how interface
is checked for 'out' policy, it'll break current behaviour.
- Timo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-01 4:52 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 [this message]
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
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=4BB42692.9010105@iki.fi \
--to=timo.teras@iki$(echo .)fi \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=hadi@cyberus$(echo .)ca \
--cc=herbert@gondor$(echo .)apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/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