[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b2edafe358d1015a143b1fa0cf49b180e962c88.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:14:32 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.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, 2018-07-24 at 14:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> 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.
I can make it safer, using the no clone path only if tcf_action is
TC_ACT_STOLEN. That will still cover the relevant use-cases.
Will do that in v4.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists