From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: add BPF_LWT_ENCAP_IP option to
 bpf_lwt_push_encap
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:04:10 -0700
Message-ID: <133be773-6d51-1d19-e5a6-1938accb0592@gmail.com>
References: <20181129002248.241080-1-posk@google.com>
 <7c92e102-3e1f-04e3-5387-1616baaa6430@gmail.com>
 <CAPNVh5e5wGVpw+tqg=WtmUkdHYwXdDmC68f8jUcBvnW5Vb-Uzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <50f3135e-5e24-d152-b99c-ca86260fbe12@gmail.com>
 <CAPNVh5fSVeKhfpovBiV222zP8zA9zNbrva7Ek6fO5nNh6vJz_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <49ceae53-3f87-44e4-eb8e-3f8bb5151a14@gmail.com>
 <CAPNVh5cFZJAuBo7XV61csF1x1sQaP_Xh7YKAV4toPygxYFggoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        posk.devel@gmail.com
To: Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:33241 "EHLO
        mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726615AbeLCQES (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:04:18 -0500
Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id z11so5921565pgu.0
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 08:04:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPNVh5cFZJAuBo7XV61csF1x1sQaP_Xh7YKAV4toPygxYFggoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/30/18 5:14 PM, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:52 PM David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/30/18 4:35 PM, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
>>> Thanks, David! This is for egress only, so I'll add an appropriate
>>> check. I'll also address your other comments/concerns in a v2 version
>>> of this patchset.
>>
>> Why are you limiting this to egress only?
> 
> I'm focusing on egress because this is a use case that we have and
> understand well, and would like to have a solution for sooner rather
> than later.
> 
> Without understanding why anybody would want to do lwt-bpf encap on
> ingress, I don't know, for example, what a good test would look like;
> but I'd be happy to look into a specific ingress use case if you have
> one.
> 

We can not have proliferation of helpers for a lot of one off use cases.
A little thought now makes this helper useful for more than just your 1
use case. And, IPv6 parity should be a minimal requirement for helpers.

Based on your route lookup I presume your use case is capturing certain
local traffic, pushing a custom header and sending that packet else
where. The same could be done on the ingress path.