Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: Introduce action ct - Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Paul Blakey <paulb@mellanox.com>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@mellanox.com>,
	Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@mellanox.com>,
	Oz Shlomo <ozsh@mellanox.com>,
	"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, Zhike Wang <wangzhike@jd.com>,
	Rony Efraim <ronye@mellanox.com>,
	"nst-kernel\@redhat.com" <nst-kernel@redhat.com>,
	John Hurley <john.hurley@netronome.com>,
	Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
	Justin Pettit <jpettit@ovn.org>,
	Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/sched: Introduce action ct
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:08:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87blz1efxd.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b2dfcb1-47b2-647f-a2d9-a6722f1af9b3@mellanox.com>

Paul Blakey <paulb@mellanox.com> writes:

> On 6/11/2019 11:23 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Paul Blakey <paulb@mellanox.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/2019 4:59 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Blakey <paulb@mellanox.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allow sending a packet to conntrack and set conntrack zone, mark,
>>>>>>> labels and nat parameters.
>>>>>> How is this different from the newly merged ctinfo action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Toke
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> ctinfo does one of two very specific things,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) copies DSCP values that have been placed in the firewall conntrack
>>>>> mark back into the IPv4/v6 diffserv field
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) copies the firewall conntrack mark to the skb's mark field (like
>>>>> act_connmark)
>>>>>
>>>>> Originally ctinfo action was named conndscp (then conntrack, which is
>>>>> what our ct shorthand stands for).
>>>>>
>>>>> We also talked about merging both at some point, but they seem only
>>>>> coincidentally related.
>>>> Well, I'm predicting it will create some confusion to have them so
>>>> closely named... Not sure what the best way to fix that is, though...?
>>> I had suggested to let act_ct handle the above as well, as there is a
>>> big chunk of code on both that is pretty similar. There is quite some
>>> boilerplate for interfacing with conntrack which is duplicated.
>>> But it was considered that the end actions are unrelated, and ctinfo
>>> went ahead. (I'm still not convinced of that, btw)
>>>
>>> Other than this, which is not an option anymore, I don't see a way to
>>> avoid confusion here. Seems anything we pick now will be confusing
>>> because ctinfo is a generic name, and we also need one here.
>> Hmm, yeah, dunno if I have any better ideas for naming that would avoid
>> this. act_runct ? Meh...
>>
>> -Toke
>
>
> If it's fine with you guys, can we keep the name act_ct ? :)

Sure, let's just keep the colour of this particular bike shed :)

-Toke