[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpW5Kk9HUWqgqx7NG9qzYHc6YWpJfOai8zaXeuRzqPsVNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:56:51 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Shmulik Ladkani
<shmulik.ladkani@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:07:12 -0700 Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> One problem to use your code for us is that, the RX side of veth
>> is inside containers, not visible to outside, perhaps we need some
>> more parameter to tell the netns before the device name/index?
>> Thoughts?
>
> Well, this is way trickier...
>
> tc_mirred doesn't cope with netns movement of the target device.
> See 'mirred_device_event': upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER the 'tcfm_dev' gets
> nullified.
>
> (dev_change_net_namespace sequence includes NETDEV_UNREGISTER,
> dev_net_set, NETDEV_REGISTER).
>
> As upposed to veth, which keeps the peer netdev pointer (since veth peers
> lifetime is coupled), here in act_mirred we can't easily distinguish a
> "real" NETDEV_UNREGISTER vs a namespace change...
Yeah, isolation is a barrier for this, so we probably can't use
this feature. But I still think it could be useful.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists