On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:25:43PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote: > > > > Interesting idea. Note: my experience is that typical setup is > > to have only one of those (from offload perspective). Ariel, > > are your use cases requiring say both fields? > > > > From policy perspective, i think above will get more complex > > mostly because you have to deal with either mark or hash > > being optional. It also opens doors for more complex matching > > requirements. Example "match mark X AND hash Y" and > > "match mark X OR hash Y". > > The new classifier will have to deal with that semantic. > > > > With fw and hash being the complex/optional semantics are easy: > > > > "match mark X AND hash Y": > > $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle X > > skbhash flowid 1:12 action continue > > $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 handle Y fw > > flowid 1:12 action ok > > > > "match mark X OR hash Y": > > $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle X > > skbhash flowid 1:12 action ok > > $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 handle Y fw > > flowid 1:12 action ok > > Not sure if I get you correctly, but with a combined implementation > you can do above too, right? Something like: > > (AND case) > $TC filter add dev $DEV1 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 3 handle 1 > skb hash Y mark X flowid 1:12 action ok
I probably missed something, but this kind of matching is pretty much what flower does today. Is it just to avoid key extraction/flow dissector or did I miss something? I know there was a thread on how to match on this hash before, but other than what I just said, I can't recall other arguments.
