[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0f2c46b-b559-bcb3-4dd9-500c062405a1@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 07:07:07 +0000
From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@...lanox.com>,
Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>,
Zhike Wang <wangzhike@...com>,
Rony Efraim <ronye@...lanox.com>,
"nst-kernel@...hat.com" <nst-kernel@...hat.com>,
John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Justin Pettit <jpettit@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: Introduce action ct
On 6/19/2019 9:33 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:28:31PM +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
> ...
>> +static int tcf_ct_fill_params_nat(struct tcf_ct_params *p,
>> + struct tc_ct *parm,
>> + struct nlattr **tb,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +{
>> + struct nf_nat_range2 *range;
>> +
>> + if (!(p->ct_action & TCA_CT_ACT_NAT))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_NAT)) {
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Netfilter nat isn't enabled in kernel");
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!(p->ct_action & (TCA_CT_ACT_NAT_SRC | TCA_CT_ACT_NAT_DST)))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if ((p->ct_action & TCA_CT_ACT_NAT_SRC) &&
>> + (p->ct_action & TCA_CT_ACT_NAT_DST)) {
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "dnat and snat can't be enabled at the same time");
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + }
>> +
>> + range = &p->range;
>> + if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MIN]) {
>> + range->min_addr.ip =
>> + nla_get_in_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MIN]);
>> + range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
>> + p->ipv4_range = true;
>> + }
>> + if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MAX]) {
>> + range->max_addr.ip =
>> + nla_get_in_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MAX]);
>> + range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
>> + p->ipv4_range = true;
>> + } else if (range->min_addr.ip) {
>> + range->max_addr.ip = range->min_addr.ip;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MIN]) {
>> + range->min_addr.in6 =
>> + nla_get_in6_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MIN]);
>> + range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
>> + p->ipv4_range = false;
>> + }
>> + if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MAX]) {
>> + range->max_addr.in6 =
>> + nla_get_in6_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MAX]);
>> + range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
>> + p->ipv4_range = false;
>> + } else if (memchr_inv(&range->min_addr.in6, 0,
>> + sizeof(range->min_addr.in6))) {
>> + range->max_addr.in6 = range->min_addr.in6;
> This will overwrite ipv4_max if it was used, as min/max_addr are
> unions.
> What about having the _MAX handling (for both ipv4/6) inside the
> if (.._MIN) { } block ?
Yes that what I planned on doing:
range = &p->range;
if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MIN]) {
p->ipv4_range = true;
range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
range->min_addr.ip =
nla_get_in_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MIN]);
range->max_addr.ip = tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MAX] ?
nla_get_in_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV4_MAX]) :
range->min_addr.ip;
} else if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MIN]) {
p->ipv4_range = false;
range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_MAP_IPS;
range->min_addr.in6 =
nla_get_in6_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MIN]);
range->max_addr.in6 = tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MAX] ?
nla_get_in6_addr(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_IPV6_MAX]) :
range->min_addr.in6;
}
if (tb[TCA_CT_NAT_PORT_MIN]) {
range->flags |= NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED;
range->min_proto.all =
nla_get_be16(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_PORT_MIN]);
range->max_proto.all = tb[TCA_CT_NAT_PORT_MAX]?
nla_get_be16(tb[TCA_CT_NAT_PORT_MAX]) :
range->min_proto.all;
>> + }
>> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists