On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:49:07PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 16:58, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > In tc pedit ex, those are _indeed_ two separated actions:
>
> I read the code again and I get it now, there's double iteration
> already over tcf_exts_for_each_action and tcf_pedit_nk
On 06/09/2019 16:58, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> In tc pedit ex, those are _indeed_ two separated actions:
I read the code again and I get it now, there's double iteration
already over tcf_exts_for_each_action and tcf_pedit_nkeys, and
it's only within the latter that you coalesce.
However, have
Hi Edward,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 15:50, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 02:37:16PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
[...]
> >> So an IPv6 address mangle only comes as a single action if it's from
> >> netfilter, not if it's comi
On 06/09/2019 15:50, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 02:37:16PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>> On 06/09/2019 14:14, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>> OK, I can document this semantics, I need just _time_ to write that
>>> documentation. I was expecting this patch description is enough b
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 02:37:16PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 14:14, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > OK, I can document this semantics, I need just _time_ to write that
> > documentation. I was expecting this patch description is enough by now
> > until I can get to finish that document
On 06/09/2019 14:14, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> OK, I can document this semantics, I need just _time_ to write that
> documentation. I was expecting this patch description is enough by now
> until I can get to finish that documentation.
I think for two structs with apparently the same contents but
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:55:29PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 11:56, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:02:18AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> >> Still NAK for the same reasons as three versions ago (when it was called
> >> "netfilter: payload mangling offload supp
On 06/09/2019 11:56, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:02:18AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>> Still NAK for the same reasons as three versions ago (when it was called
>> "netfilter: payload mangling offload support"), you've never managed to
>> explain why this extra API complex
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:02:18AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 01:03, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > This patch updates the mangle action representation:
> >
> > Patch 1) Undo bitwise NOT operation on the mangle mask (coming from tc
> > pedit userspace).
> >
> > Patch 2) mangle
On 06/09/2019 01:03, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> This patch updates the mangle action representation:
>
> Patch 1) Undo bitwise NOT operation on the mangle mask (coming from tc
> pedit userspace).
>
> Patch 2) mangle value &= mask from the front-end side.
>
> Patch 3) adjust offset, length
This patch updates the mangle action representation:
Patch 1) Undo bitwise NOT operation on the mangle mask (coming from tc
pedit userspace).
Patch 2) mangle value &= mask from the front-end side.
Patch 3) adjust offset, length and coalesce consecutive pedit keys into
one singl
11 matches
Mail list logo
