On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:24 AM, wei zhang <asuka....@163.com> wrote: > At 2014-04-01 08:49:53,"Jesse Gross" <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:12 AM, wei zhang <asuka....@163.com> wrote: >>> At 2014-03-29 06:02:25,"Jesse Gross" <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>> Maybe I misunderstand something? I think if we discard all packet pass to us >>> when we use gre vport, new gre_cisco_protocol which has lower priority could >>> not see the packet intended to it. >> >>That's true but in this case it would also not see any data packets, >>so I don't think that situation would work well anyways. >> >>> I checked the implementation of the ipgre_err(), which has be called before >>> the err_handler of gre vport. It use the the (local address, remote >>> address, key) >>> to distinguish the packet which is realy intended to it, although it could >>> not >>> always get the key from the icmp packet. Should we do as the same as it? >>> I'm not sure this is feasible, any advice is appreciate. >> >>OVS does flow based matching rather than using a static set of >>configuration parameters, so everything "matches" in some way >>(although the result might be to drop). > > So the flow based match could dynamically determine by the ovs daemon, we > could > not find out the belonging of the packet as far as we call ovs_dp_upcall(), > isn't it?
That's right - and since the OVS flow table always has a default behavior (even if it is drop or send to controller) there's never a packet that isn't considered to be destined to OVS once it is received. If this makes sense to you, would you mind submitting the patch you had earlier formally with a commit message and signed off by line? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/