[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160925203309.633cf3d5@halley>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:33:09 +0300
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress
actions
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:05:08 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 16-09-23 11:40 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> >
> > [off topic]
>
> I think this is still on topic!
Sorry, wasn't too clear on that.
What I meant is that _existing_ "egress redirect" already gets us into
crazy loops - the veth misconfig being just one example of, but
many more exist (many device stacking constructs, with lower dev issuing
an egress-redirect back to the topmost dev).
Point is, IMO loop detection (whether/how addressed), is orthogonal to
this series implementing "ingress redirect", and doesn't seem as a
strict prerequisite to adding the "ingress redirect" functionality to
act_mirred.
We can later address any loop-detection improvements in mirred.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Shmulik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists