[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUiH5gdPp_=GKhP7N8Eu2VVjmGfR6hvXQoaKwyot0JkjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:15:25 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] act_mirred: use TC_ACT_REINJECT when possible
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> +
> + /* let's the caller reinject the packet, if possible */
> + if (skb_at_tc_ingress(skb)) {
> + res->ingress = want_ingress;
> + res->qstats = this_cpu_ptr(m->common.cpu_qstats);
> + return TC_ACT_REINJECT;
> + }
Looks good to me, but here we no longer return user-specified
return value here, I am sure it is safe for TC_ACT_STOLEN, but
I am not sure if it is safe for other values, like TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY.
Jamal, is there any use case of returning !TC_ACT_STOLEN for
ingress redirections?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists