On 17-01-15 04:11 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Subject should contain "V2"
Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:52:44PM CET, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com>
Introduce optional 128-bit action cookie.
Like all other cookie schemes in the networking world (eg in protocols
like http or existing kernel fib protocol field, etc) the idea is to save
user state that when retrieved serves as a correlator. The kernel
_should not_ intepret it. The user can store whatever they wish in the
128 bits.
Sample exercise(using two 64bit values to represent the 128 bits):
Looks like you did not update the description.
Yikes. Yes - will send v3.
Signed-off-by: Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com>
V1->V2 changelog would ne nice.
Will do.
---
include/net/act_api.h | 1 +
include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h | 11 +++++++++++
net/sched/act_api.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/act_api.h b/include/net/act_api.h
index 1d71644..0692458 100644
--- a/include/net/act_api.h
+++ b/include/net/act_api.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct tc_action {
struct rcu_head tcfa_rcu;
struct gnet_stats_basic_cpu __percpu *cpu_bstats;
struct gnet_stats_queue __percpu *cpu_qstats;
+ struct tc_cookie *act_ck;
I wonder if we just can't do:
struct tc_cookie act_ck;
You would safe kzalloc. I don't have strong opinion though..
Lets spare some RAM. I'll keep it the way it is.
};
#define tcf_head common.tcfa_head
#define tcf_index common.tcfa_index
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
index 1e5e1dd..063bc89 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
@@ -4,6 +4,16 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/pkt_sched.h>
+#define MAX_TC_COOKIE_SZ 16
I like to have some "namespace" prefix for user api.
"TC_COOKIE_MAX_SIZE" perhaps?
I just cutnpasted from something familiar: MAX_PHYS_ITEM_ID_LEN ;->
Will make the change.
+
+/* This structure holds cookie structure that is passed from user
+ * to the kernel for actions and classifiers
+ */
+struct tc_cookie {
+ unsigned char ck[MAX_TC_COOKIE_SZ];
+ unsigned char ck_len;
This struct should certainly not be in UAPI header.
I will move it.
+};
+
/* Action attributes */
enum {
TCA_ACT_UNSPEC,
@@ -12,6 +22,7 @@ enum {
TCA_ACT_INDEX,
TCA_ACT_STATS,
TCA_ACT_PAD,
+ TCA_ACT_COOKIE,
__TCA_ACT_MAX
};
+ memcpy((void *)a->act_ck->ck, nla_data(tb[TCA_ACT_COOKIE]),
Unneeded (void *) cast.
ok. I think gcc whined for some reason.
Will post after some test.
cheers,
jamal
