[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181015.214320.807689629924469586.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 21:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: pablo@...filter.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, amir@...ai.me, pshelar@....org,
u9012063@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] ip_tunnel: specify tunnel type via
template
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:24:36 +0200
> The following patchset adds a new field to the tunnel metadata template.
> This new field allows us to restrict the configuration to a given tunnel
> driver in order to catch incorrect configuration that may result in
> packets going to the wrong tunnel driver.
>
> Changes with regards to initial RFC [1] are:
>
> 1) Explicit tunnel type initialization to TUNNEL_TYPE_UNSPEC in existing
> clients for this code, as requested by Daniel.
>
> 2) Add TUNNEL_TYPE_* definition through enum tunnel_type in
> uapi/linux/if_tunnel.h, so we don't need to redefine this in every
> client of this infrastructure.
>
> 3) Add TUNNEL_TYPE_IPIP, TUNNEL_TYPE_IPIP6 and TUNNEL_TYPE_IP6IP6, which
> were missing in the original RFC.
>
> Let me know if you any more comments, thanks.
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=153861145204094&w=2
People don't need to update a core common UAPI header to add a new
ethernet driver.
They shouldn't have to do so to add a new tunneling driver either.
But that requirement is created by this patch set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists