Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:51:42AM CET, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:53:57PM CET, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >>>On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >>>> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >>>> >>>> Currently, user may choose to move device that is used by mirred action >>>> to another network namespace. That is wrong as the action still remains >>>> in the original namespace and references non-existing ifindex. >>> >>>It is a pure display issue, the action itself should function well >>>because we only use ifindex to lookup netdevice once and >>>we save the netdevice pointer in action. >>> >>>If you really want to fix it, just tell iprout2 to display netnsid together >>>with ifindex. >> >> It is not only display issue. I think it is wrong to let a netdevice > >What's wrong with it? Is it mis-functioning?
Nope. > >> dissapear from underneath the mirred action. You certainly cannot add an > > >It disappears only because we don't display it properly, nothing else. Okay. > > >> action mirred with device from another net namespace. So should we allow >> that? > >On the other hand why linking a device to mirred action prevents it >from moving to another netns? Also, device can be moved back too. > >I don't see anything wrong with it except displaying it. Okay. What about my question? Should we allow adding an action mirred pointing to a netdev in another netns? I think it would make sense in case we consider movement of mirred device legit.
