Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:50:44PM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:47:50PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:37:33PM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:56:03PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:52:06PM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:08:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:27:33AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:10:05AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> >> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:16:34AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >...
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > enum flow_dissector_key_id {
>> >> >> >> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_CONTROL, /* struct
>> >> >> >> > flow_dissector_key_control */
>> >> >> >> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_BASIC, /* struct flow_dissector_key_basic */
>> >> >> >> >@@ -205,6 +217,7 @@ enum flow_dissector_key_id {
>> >> >> >> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_MPLS, /* struct flow_dissector_key_mpls */
>> >> >> >> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_TCP, /* struct flow_dissector_key_tcp */
>> >> >> >> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IP, /* struct flow_dissector_key_ip */
>> >> >> >> >+ FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_OPTS, /* struct
>> >> >> >> >flow_dissector_key_enc_opts */
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I don't see the actual dissection implementation. Where is it?
>> >> >> >> Did you test the patchset?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes, I did test it. But it is also possible something went astray
>> >> >> >along the
>> >> >> >way and I will retest.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I think that the code you are looking for is in
>> >> >> >fl_classify() in this patch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The dissection should be done in the flow_dissector. That's the whole
>> >> >> point in having it generic. You should move it there.
>> >> >
>> >> >Coming back to this after lunch, I believe what I have done in this patch
>> >> >is consistent with handling of other enc fields, which are set in
>> >> >fl_classify() rather than the dissector. In particular the
>> >> >ip_tunnel_info,
>> >> >which is used by this patch, is already used in fl_classify().
>> >>
>> >> That means the current code is wrong. The dissection should be done in
>> >> flow_dissector, not in fl_classify.
>> >
>> >Would an better approach be to move the fl_classify() below into, say,
>> >skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info() and call that from fl_classify().
>>
>> No. There is one flow dissection function and you just set it up in a
>> way you need it. Makes no sense to me to split it up in any way.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The reason I suggest this rather than moving the code into
>> >__skb_flow_dissect() is that currently flower assumes that tunnel_info
>> >is used if present. While I assume other users of () assume tunnel_info
>> >is not used even if present.
>>
>> __skb_flow_dissect should look at what caller wants, then check
>> skb_tunnel_info
>> only in case it is needed.
>
>Ok, do you think it is sufficient for __skb_flow_dissect to look at the
>tunnel keys, say FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_*? I am a bit concerned this may
>break flower as it look at the tunnel info unconditionally.
yeah. When flower needs that, it will get that from the flow dissector.
I don't see why it would break anything. Again, existing code is wrong:
commit bc3103f1ed405de587fa43d8b0671e615505a700
Author: Amir Vadai <a...@vadai.me>
Date: Thu Sep 8 16:23:47 2016 +0300
net/sched: cls_flower: Classify packet in ip tunnels
The dissection has to be moved to flow dissector.
