On 17-01-02 11:33 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
On 17-01-02 05:22 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
[..]
Like all cookie semantics it is for storing state. The receiver (kernel)
is not just store it and not intepret it. The user when reading it back
simplifies what they have to do for their processing.
The tuple <ifindex:qdisc:prio:handle> really should be unique why
not use this for system wide mappings?
I think on a single machine should be enough, however:
typically the user wants to define the value in a manner that
in a distributed system it is unique. It would be trickier to
do so with well defined values such as above.
Just extend the tuple <hostname:ifindex:qdisc:prio:handle> that
should be unique in the domain of hostname's, or use some other domain
wide machine identifier.
May work for the case of filter identification. The nice thing for
allowing cookies is you can let the user define it define their
own scheme.
Although actions can be shared so the cookie can be shared across
filters. Maybe its useful but it doesn't uniquely identify a filter
in the shared case but the user would have to specify that case
so maybe its not important.
Note: the action cookies and filter cookies are unrelated/orthogonal.
Their basic concept of stashing something in the cookie to help improve
what user space does (in our case millions of actions of which some are
used for accounting) is similar.
I have no objections to the flow cookies; my main concern was it should
be applicable to all classifiers not just flower. And the arbitrary size
of the cookie that you pointed out is questionable.
cheers,
jamal
