[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5298A0EF.70401@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:13:03 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Michal Sekletar <msekleta@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS
On 11/28/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 12:57 +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
>
>> +enum {
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PROTOCOL = (1 << 0),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PKTTYPE = (1 << 1),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_IFINDEX = (1 << 2),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR = (1 << 3),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR_NEST = (1 << 4),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_MARK = (1 << 5),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_QUEUE = (1 << 6),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_HATYPE = (1 << 7),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_RXHASH = (1 << 8),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_CPU = (1 << 9),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_ALU_XOR_X = (1 << 10),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_SECCOMP_LD_W = (1 << 11),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG = (1 << 12),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG_PRESENT = (1 << 13),
>> + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PAY_OFFSET = (1 << 14),
>> +};
>> +
>
> Why spending 15 bits (out of 32), for all these extensions ?
>
> It seems a single one should be enough.
>
> I do not think we will ever remove one of these extension.
Agreed, this will just cripple of us adding other extensions in
terms of uapi. I assume there won't be so much more extensions,
but it's of course hard to predict the future. ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists