On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:15:32 +0800
Zhang Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com> wrote:

> Since the real user scenario does not need COLO to monitor all traffic.
> Add colo-passthrough-add and colo-passthrough-del to maintain
> a COLO network passthrough list. Add IPFlowSpec struct for all QMP commands.
> Except protocol field is necessary, other fields are optional.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
>  net/net.c     | 10 ++++++++
>  qapi/net.json | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c
> index edf9b95418..2a6e5f3886 100644
> --- a/net/net.c
> +++ b/net/net.c
> @@ -1196,6 +1196,16 @@ void qmp_netdev_del(const char *id, Error **errp)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +void qmp_colo_passthrough_add(IPFlowSpec *spec, Error **errp)
> +{
> +    /* TODO implement setup passthrough rule */
> +}
> +
> +void qmp_colo_passthrough_del(IPFlowSpec *spec, Error **errp)
> +{
> +    /* TODO implement delete passthrough rule */
> +}
> +
>  static void netfilter_print_info(Monitor *mon, NetFilterState *nf)
>  {
>      char *str;
> diff --git a/qapi/net.json b/qapi/net.json
> index af3f5b0fda..f6e4e37526 100644
> --- a/qapi/net.json
> +++ b/qapi/net.json
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>  ##
>  
>  { 'include': 'common.json' }
> +{ 'include': 'sockets.json' }
>  
>  ##
>  # @set_link:
> @@ -694,3 +695,70 @@
>  ##
>  { 'event': 'FAILOVER_NEGOTIATED',
>    'data': {'device-id': 'str'} }
> +
> +##
> +# @IPFlowSpec:

I think something like "@IPFilterRule" is clearer.

> +# IP flow specification.

"IP filter rule specification"

> +# @protocol: Transport layer protocol like TCP/UDP...
> +#
> +# @object-name: Point out the IPflow spec effective range of object,
> +#               If there is no such part, it means global spec.

I think IPFlowSpec should be kept generic, so object-name should not be
part of it. It should move directly to 'colo-passthrough-add' and
'colo-passthrough-del'.

Also please use clearer wording. Proposal:
"@object-name: The id of the colo-compare object to add the filter to."

Again, if other net filters support the new feature in the future, the
wording can always be changed later.

> +# @source: Source address and port.
> +#
> +# @destination: Destination address and port.
> +#
> +# Since: 6.1
> +##
> +{ 'struct': 'IPFlowSpec',
> +  'data': { 'protocol': 'str', '*object-name': 'str',
> +    '*source': 'InetSocketAddressBase',
> +    '*destination': 'InetSocketAddressBase' } }

I think 'protocol' should be made optional too.

> +##
> +# @colo-passthrough-add:
> +#
> +# Add passthrough entry according to user's needs in COLO-compare.
> +# Source IP/port and destination IP/port both optional, If user just
> +# input parts of infotmation, it will match all.
> +#
> +# Returns: Nothing on success
> +#
> +# Since: 6.1
> +#
> +# Example:
> +#
> +# -> { "execute": "colo-passthrough-add",
> +#      "arguments": { "protocol": "tcp", "object-name": "object0",
> +#      "source": {"host": "192.168.1.1", "port": "1234"},
> +#      "destination": {"host": "192.168.1.2", "port": "4321"} } }
> +# <- { "return": {} }
> +#
> +##
> +{ 'command': 'colo-passthrough-add', 'boxed': true,
> +     'data': 'IPFlowSpec' }
> +
> +##
> +# @colo-passthrough-del:
> +#
> +# Delete passthrough entry according to user's needs in COLO-compare.
> +# Source IP/port and destination IP/port both optional, If user just
> +# input parts of infotmation, it will match all.
> +#
> +# Returns: Nothing on success
> +#
> +# Since: 6.1
> +#
> +# Example:
> +#
> +# -> { "execute": "colo-passthrough-del",
> +#      "arguments": { "protocol": "tcp", "object-name": "object0",
> +#      "source": {"host": "192.168.1.1", "port": "1234"},
> +#      "destination": {"host": "192.168.1.2", "port": "4321"} } }
> +# <- { "return": {} }
> +#
> +##
> +{ 'command': 'colo-passthrough-del', 'boxed': true,
> +     'data': 'IPFlowSpec' }



--