Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for filter-mirror/redirector

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

在 2021/11/4 下午1:37, Zhang, Chen 写道:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we need to introduce new parameter, e.g force_vnet_hdr
>>>>> here, then we can always send vnet_hdr when it is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise the "vnet_hdr_support" seems meaningless.
>>>> Yes, Current "vnet_hdr_support"  default enabled, and vnet_hdr_len
>>> already forced from attached nf->netdev.
>>>> Maybe we can introduce a new parameter "force_no_vnet_hdr" here to
>>> make the vnet_hdr_len always keep 0.
>>>> If you think OK, I will update it in next version.
>>> Let me explain, if I was not wrong:
>>>
>>> "vnet_hdr_support" means whether or not to send vnet header length. If
>>> vnet_hdr_support=false, we won't send the vnet header. This looks the
>>> same as you "force_no_vent_hdr" above.
>> Yes, It was.  But this series changed it.
>> Current "vnet_hdr_support" can't decide whether send vnet header length,
>> we always send it even 0.
>> It will avoid sender/receiver transfer protocol parse issues:
>> When sender data with the vnet header length, but receiver can't enable the
>> "vnet_hdr_support".
>> Filters will auto setup vnet_hdr_len as local nf->netdev and found the issue
>> when get different vnet_hdr_len from other filters.
>>
>>> And my "force_vnet_hdr" seems duplicated with vnet_hdr_support=true.
>>> So it looks to me we can leave the mirror code as is and just change
>>> the compare? (depends on the mgmt to set a correct vnet_hdr_support)
>> OK, I will keep the filter-mirror/filter-redirector/filter-rewriter same as this
>> version.
>> For the colo-compare module, It will get primary node's filter data's
>> vnet_hdr_len as the local value, And compare with secondary node's,
>> because it is not attached any nf->netdev.
>> So, it looks compare module's "vnet_hdr_support" been auto configuration
>> from the filter transport protocol.
>> If the "force_vnet_hdr" means hard code a compare's local vnet_hdr_len
>> rather than come from input filter's data?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Chen
>>
> Hi Jason/Markus,
>
> Rethink about it, How about keep the original "vnet_hdr_support" function,
> And add a new optional parameter "auto_vnet_hdr" for filters/compare?


It's a way but rethink of the whole thing. I wonder what if we just 
enable "vnet_hdr_support" by default for filter and colo-compare?

Thanks


>
> Thanks
> Chen
>
>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Chen
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>