From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/5] net_sched: Add support for IFE action Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:58:27 +0100 Message-ID: <56CDEF43.1010402@iogearbox.net> References: <1456147304-13355-1-git-send-email-jhs@emojatatu.com> <56CB3B90.8030206@iogearbox.net> <56CC4BEA.70108@mojatatu.com> <56CC5CB6.1030807@iogearbox.net> <56CC6C75.1000903@mojatatu.com> <56CC7C20.3090302@iogearbox.net> <56CDA6E8.7010604@mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com To: Jamal Hadi Salim , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:35122 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751370AbcBXR6l (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:58:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56CDA6E8.7010604@mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/24/2016 01:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 16-02-23 10:34 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] >> My concern is we add 20 new modules like this that only do trivial things, >> where instead they could have been consolidated and reduce maintenance. Or >> is this hard module requirement related to the IFE_META_* module parameter? > > Yes, a bit of that ++. > I am between two worlds: There are people who do user space packet > processing that claim they do so because they can quickly prototype > without compiling the kernel. My goal is to make it easy for people > adding new metadata without having to deal with kernel recompile. Seems like a case for cls_bpf? ;) > I do expect for there to be many variations of what that metadata > will be. For that reason I have them as standalone modules and they > serve the purpose to illustrate how someone would write such a module. > The IFE_META_XXX is part of saying i dont need to have people > changing the header file either. But i want them to use static > META_IDS. So the IFE module parameter is supposed to allow them to > change the upper bound of modules when insmoding ife_act so that > proper validation can happen. I cant make it as large as 32-bit > or not check if it is correct. If i take it out - then i would have to > do that or introduce some complex mechanism for registration. Ok, sure, given the assumption that this is only to be used in your own fully _controlled_ environment anyway. But in that case, you don't even need to define any fixed IDs. Currently it seems like you could have different kernel versions with different IFE_META_MAX from the kernel headers and external modules define part of the ID space differently? Thanks, Daniel