[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f1a3b9a-6a60-f1b3-0fc1-f2361864c822@solarflare.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 12:44:48 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<paulb@...lanox.com>, <ozsh@...lanox.com>, <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
<jiri@...nulli.us>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
<michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8 net] the indirect flow_block offload, revisited
On 13/05/2020 17:41, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset fixes the indirect flow_block support for the tc CT action
> offload. Please, note that this batch is probably slightly large for the
> net tree, however, I could not find a simple incremental fix.
>
> = The problem
>
> The nf_flow_table_indr_block_cb() function provides the tunnel netdevice
> and the indirect flow_block driver callback. From this tunnel netdevice,
> it is not possible to obtain the tc CT flow_block. Note that tc qdisc
> and netfilter backtrack from the tunnel netdevice to the tc block /
> netfilter chain to reach the flow_block object. This allows them to
> clean up the hardware offload rules if the tunnel device is removed.
>
> <snip>
>
> = About this patchset
>
> This patchset aims to address the existing TC CT problem while
> simplifying the indirect flow_block infrastructure. Saving 300 LoC in
> the flow_offload core and the drivers.
This might be a dumb question, but: what is the actual bug being fixed,
that makes this patch series needed on net rather than net-next?
>From your description it sounds like a good and useful cleanup/refactor,
but nonetheless still a clean-up, appropriate for net-next.
-ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists