On 02/23/2016 01:09 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 16-02-22 11:47 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[...]
So, basically this is a L2 encap with TLVs, right?
And as TLVs you have skb->mark, skb->priority, skb->hash,
skb->queue_mapping
that you transfer from one machine to another, where on the destination,
you
are applying the above meta data to the skb itself. And, configuration
is via
tc.
I couldn't parse from the commit log what the real world use case is, resp.
who is going to use this infrastructure?
Do you have some typical setup, where the above needs to be transferred
in the
encap and restored?
I am assuming you are asking this for the sake of people who dont
have context (and not for yourself)?
I added a pointer to the paper. It is 6 pages and simple to read.
Isnt that sufficient? I dont want to write a novel here. Some could
argue that in fact i am already writing a novel in commit 1/5.
Ok, the paper talks about, quote:
- Pipeline-stage Indexing.
- OAM information - example turn on some packet debug information on a need
basis.
- Exception handling information - example VXLAN service handling.
- Authentication and authorization information.
- Versioning information.
- Compliance information.
- Service Identifiers.
As your primary examples, you provide skb->mark, skb->priority, skb->hash,
skb->queue_mapping for encapsulating, f.e. how do you use skb>hash in this
scenario? What's the use-case?
Jamal Hadi Salim (5):
introduce IFE action
Support to encoding decoding skb mark on IFE action
Support to encoding decoding skb prio on IFE action
Support to encoding decoding skb hashid on IFE action
Support to encoding decoding skb queue map on IFE action
include/net/tc_act/tc_ife.h | 60 +++
include/uapi/linux/tc_act/tc_ife.h | 38 ++
net/sched/Kconfig | 32 ++
net/sched/Makefile | 5 +
net/sched/act_ife.c | 865
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
net/sched/act_meta_mark.c | 81 ++++
net/sched/act_meta_qmap.c | 100 +++++
net/sched/act_meta_skbhash.c | 87 ++++
net/sched/act_meta_skbprio.c | 80 ++++
Splitting these set/get functions into individual modules where you only
set/get a single skb member seems overkill to me. Could be done with a
simple switch statement inside ife?
They need to be separated to make them unique. These are basic
metadatum; I have a few others lined up - but i just wanted to start
with these because they are obvious to see. What i mulled over is
to send one big patch or several. In the end it seemed cleaner to
send separate patches.
But just to make them unique, you don't need to add extra modules for
this ... just having a module for encoding one skb member seems like
total overdesign to me. If you really want them to be separate ops,
you can still include them into act_ife.c itself.
Thanks,
Daniel
