Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net_sched: Introduce skbmod action

[Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>]

On 16-07-19 09:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

> True, the 32 bit chunks are more generic and as such you need to put more
> effort in user space to handle them, but at the same time gain more
> flexibility
> w/o having to have a module for each and every proto.


I dont see anything wrong with using pedit as a first step; even
if you did what Cong said he would do _i wont use it_ given the choice
against skbmod. I think we are going in circles now in this discussion.

You probably didnt mean to say module per protocol above since we only
have one action module [no different than what ebtables or openvswitch
does. It may have more justifiable extensions in the future].

> But apart from this,
> neither pedit nor tcf_skbmod_run() here handle checksum complete, so you'll
> potentially get false positives wrt csum corruption and drops as a result
> when using either of the two.
>

pedit maybe tricky. Any suggestions?
On tcf_skbmod_run, mostly ignorance: while doing only ethernet updates;
is it still needed to do the checksum complete?

cheers,
jamal