[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLiGZv=PzqFd=9f02spzo-vibrKBM7kRpTp29L=FeeooQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:08:33 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Petar Penkov <peterpenkov96@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v3 6/8] flow_dissector: handle no-skb use case
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:52 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> The BPF flow dissector should work the same. It is fine to pass the
> data including ethernet header, but parsing can start at nhoff with
> proto explicitly passed.
>
> We should not assume Ethernet link layer.
then skb-less dissector has to be different program type
because semantics are different.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists