On 04/01/2017 12:33, Simon Horman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
...
Hi Paul,
Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching.
And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need of a
update each time a new flag is introduced,
But I guess I can add two options like with ip_proto where you can specify
known flags by name but can also give a value.
What do you think about that?
flags <FLAGS> / <HEX'/'HEX>
FLAGS => frag/no_frag/tcp_syn/no_tcp_syn ['|'<FLAGS>]*
e.g: flags frag|no_tcp_syn or flags 0x01/0x15
and the mask will have a on bits corresponds only to those flags specified.
I suppose a flag is a flag and bitwise masking allows arbitrary matching
on one or more flags. But I wonder if, as per your example above,
it makes sense to mix IP (frag) and TCP flags in the same field of the
classifier.
It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way
(flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri?
