On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:12 AM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan
<subas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> This patch adds support for OUTPUT_MARK in xfrm state to exercise the
> functionality added by kernel commit 077fbac405bf
> ("net: xfrm: support setting an output mark.").
>
> Sample output with output-mark -
>
> src 192.168.1.1 dst 192.168.1.2
> proto esp spi 0x00004321 reqid 0 mode tunnel
> replay-window 0 flag af-unspec
> auth-trunc xcbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b211 96
> enc cbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b233
> anti-replay context: seq 0x0, oseq 0x0, bitmap 0x00000000
> output-mark 0x20000
Have you considered putting this earlier up in the output, where the
mark is printed as well?
> + if (tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]) {
> + __u32 output_mark = rta_getattr_u32(tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]);
> +
> + fprintf(fp, "\toutput-mark 0x%x %s", output_mark, _SL_);
> + }
> }
If you wanted to implement the suggestion above, I think you could do
that by moving this code into xfrm_xfrma_print.
Other than that, LGTM.
Acked-by: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com>
Steffen - what's the status of the set_mark patches? Are you holding
them until the tree opens again? If so, then once they go in, we can
just make "set-mark" behave the same as "output-mark" in the iproute2
code, and add support for the mask as well.
