Hi Davide,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davide Caratti <dcara...@redhat.com>
> Sent: 2020年5月6日 20:54
> To: Po Liu <po....@nxp.com>; dsah...@gmail.com; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; net...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: vinicius.go...@intel.com; step...@networkplumber.org;
> da...@davemloft.net; v...@buslov.dev; Claudiu Manoil
> <claudiu.man...@nxp.com>; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.olt...@nxp.com>;
> Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.margin...@nxp.com>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [v4,iproute2-next 1/2] iproute2-next:tc:action: add a
> gate control action
>
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 16:40 +0800, Po Liu wrote:
> > Introduce a ingress frame gate control flow action.
> [...]
>
> hello Po Liu,
>
> [...]
>
> > +create_entry:
> > + e = create_gate_entry(gate_state, interval,
> > + ipv, maxoctets);
> > + if (!e) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, "gate: not enough memory\n");
> > + free_entries(&gate_entries);
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_add_tail(&e->list, &gate_entries);
> > + entry_num++;
> > +
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "reclassify") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "drop") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "shot") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "continue") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "pass") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "ok") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "pipe") == 0 ||
> > + matches(*argv, "goto") == 0) {
> > + if (parse_action_control(&argc, &argv,
> > + &parm.action, false)) {
> > + free_entries(&gate_entries);
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "help") == 0) {
> > + usage();
> > + } else {
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + argc--;
> > + argv++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + parse_action_control_dflt(&argc, &argv, &parm.action,
> > + false, TC_ACT_PIPE);
>
> it seems that the control action is parsed twice, and the first time it does
> not allow "jump" and "trap". Is that intentional? IOW, are there some
> "act_gate" configurations that don't allow jump or trap?
It is allowed to jump and trap. I didn't notice it was loaded twice. I would
correct here and remove one parse_action_control()
Thanks a lot!
>
> I don't see anything similar in kernel act_gate.c, where tcf_gate_act() can
> return TC_ACT_SHOT or whatever is written in parm.action. That's why I'm
> asking, if these two control actions are forbidden you should let the kernel
> return -EINVAL with a proper extack in tcf_gate_init(). Can you please
> clarify?
>
> thank you in advance!
> --
> davide
>
Br,
Po Liu
