From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next v5 0/4] netfilter: flowtable: add indr-block offload
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 22:28:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200315212800.j45jg3s4gbpiql53@salvia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83bfbc34-6a3e-1f31-4546-1511c5dcddf5@ucloud.cn>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 08:54:25PM +0800, wenxu wrote:
>
> 在 2020/3/4 5:53, Pablo Neira Ayuso 写道:
[...]
> The indirect block infrastructure is designed by the driver guys. The callbacks
> is used for building and finishing relationship between the tunnel device and
> the hardware devices. Such as the tunnel device come in and go away and the hardware
> device come in and go away. The relationship between the tunnel device and the
> hardware devices is so subtle.
I understand that this mechanism provides a way for the driver to
subscribe to tunnel devices that might be offloaded.
> > Probably not a requirement in your case, but the same net_device might
> > be used in several flowtables. Your patch is flawed there and I don't
> > see an easy way to fix this.
>
> The same tunnel device can only be added to one offloaded flowtables.
This is a limitation that needs to be removed. There are requirements
to allow to make the same tunnel device be part of another flowtable.
> The tunnel device can build the relationship with the hardware
> devices one time in the dirver. This is protected by
> flow_block_cb_is_busy and xxx_indr_block_cb_priv in driver.
>
> > I know there is no way to use ->ndo_setup_tc for tunnel devices, but
> > you could have just make it work making it look consistent to the
> > ->ndo_setup_tc logic.
>
> I think the difficulty is how to find the hardware device for tunnel
> device to set the rule to the hardware.
Right, this is the problem that the infrastructure is solving,
however, it's a bit of a twisty way to address the problem.
> > I'm inclined to apply this patch though, in the hope that this all can
> > be revisited later to get it in line with the ->ndo_setup_tc approach.
> > However, probably I'm hoping for too much.
I have applied this patchset to nf-next.
Probably, there might be a chance to revisit this indirect block
infrastructure.
Thank you.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-15 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1582521775-25176-1-git-send-email-wenxu@ucloud.cn>
2020-03-03 21:53 ` [PATCH nf-next v5 0/4] netfilter: flowtable: add indr-block offload Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-03-04 12:54 ` wenxu
2020-03-15 21:28 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200315212800.j45jg3s4gbpiql53@salvia \
--to=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wenxu@ucloud.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).