[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1426098340.11398.59.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:25:40 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Why do we prefer skb->priority to tc filters?
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 11:08 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given that skb->priority can be specified in user-space, doesn't this
> > mean some application can always override our rules specified by tc
> > filters? I think we should always respect tc filters over any
> > application setting.
> >
>
> Hmm, on the other hand, skb->priority can be changed in cgroup
> too, in this case the current behavior seems correct. :-/ Interesting.
Note that even HTB has the following code :
static struct htb_class *htb_classify(struct sk_buff *skb, struct Qdisc *sch,
int *qerr)
{
struct htb_sched *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
struct htb_class *cl;
struct tcf_result res;
struct tcf_proto *tcf;
int result;
/* allow to select class by setting skb->priority to valid classid;
* note that nfmark can be used too by attaching filter fw with no
* rules in it
*/
if (skb->priority == sch->handle)
return HTB_DIRECT; /* X:0 (direct flow) selected */
cl = htb_find(skb->priority, sch);
if (cl) {
if (cl->level == 0)
return cl;
/* Start with inner filter chain if a non-leaf class is selected */
tcf = rcu_dereference_bh(cl->filter_list);
} else {
tcf = rcu_dereference_bh(q->filter_list);
}
So if skb->priority happens to match sch->handle or any class handle,
we queue packet into a queue, without calling tc_classify()
--
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