On 16-10-18 07:14 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
I was sitting on this patch I was going to send ;->
Does this resolve it?
Your patch makes more sense to me. Maybe we can remove the
event != RTM_DELTFILTER special case too?
We cant entirely ge
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> I was sitting on this patch I was going to send ;->
> Does this resolve it?
Your patch makes more sense to me. Maybe we can remove the
event != RTM_DELTFILTER special case too?
On 10/19/2016 12:18 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 16-10-18 05:59 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[...]
Ahh sure, looks good to me. All other RTM_DELTFILTER events
would be for the entire tcf_proto and 'enforced' destroy, so
zero handle would indicate that then as opposed to a individual
cls delete
On 16-10-18 05:59 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Ahh sure, looks good to me. All other RTM_DELTFILTER events
would be for the entire tcf_proto and 'enforced' destroy, so
zero handle would indicate that then as opposed to a individual
cls delete with non-zero handle. Seems fine.
Ok, thanks. I will
On 10/18/2016 11:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
[...]
I was sitting on this patch I was going to send ;->
Does this resolve it?
Ahh sure, looks good to me. All other RTM_DELTFILTER events
would be for the entire tcf_proto and 'enforced' destroy, so
zero handle would indicate that then as oppose
On 16-10-18 04:18 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
While trying out [1][2], I noticed that tc monitor doesn't show the
correct handle on delete:
$ tc monitor
qdisc clsact : dev eno1 parent :fff1
filter dev eno1 ingress protocol all pref 49152 bpf handle 0x2a [...]
deleted filter dev en
While trying out [1][2], I noticed that tc monitor doesn't show the
correct handle on delete:
$ tc monitor
qdisc clsact : dev eno1 parent :fff1
filter dev eno1 ingress protocol all pref 49152 bpf handle 0x2a [...]
deleted filter dev eno1 ingress protocol all pref 49152 bpf handle 0