Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] act_mirred: use TC_ACT_REINJECT when possible

From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] act_mirred: use TC_ACT_REINJECT when possible
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:15:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUiH5gdPp_=GKhP7N8Eu2VVjmGfR6hvXQoaKwyot0JkjQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <612f6fb5b0cdddcbbc2d99f65b148b7f3b8b9a27.1532437050.git.pabeni@redhat.com>

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> +
> +               /* let's the caller reinject the packet, if possible */
> +               if (skb_at_tc_ingress(skb)) {
> +                       res->ingress = want_ingress;
> +                       res->qstats = this_cpu_ptr(m->common.cpu_qstats);
> +                       return TC_ACT_REINJECT;
> +               }

Looks good to me, but here we no longer return user-specified
return value here, I am sure it is safe for TC_ACT_STOLEN, but
I am not sure if it is safe for other values, like TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY.

Jamal, is there any use case of returning !TC_ACT_STOLEN for
ingress redirections?

Thanks.