On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:40:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> > index f4297c8a42fe..93a86edf3bd8 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> > @@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ enum {
> > TCA_BPF_FD,
> > TCA_BPF_NAME,
> > TCA_BPF_FLAGS,
> > + TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS,
>
> Small nit for the non-RFC set: I'd simply name that TCA_BPF_FLAGS_GEN.
OK!
> > @@ -400,8 +406,11 @@ static int cls_bpf_modify_existing(struct net *net,
> > struct tcf_proto *tp,
> >
> > have_exts = bpf_flags & TCA_BPF_FLAG_ACT_DIRECT;
> > }
> > + if (tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS])
> > + gen_flags = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]);
> >
> > prog->exts_integrated = have_exts;
> > + prog->gen_flags = gen_flags & CLS_BPF_SUPPORTED_GEN_FLAGS;
>
> Invalid flags should probably be rejected here with -EINVAL or something.
Indeed, that would be more in line with what is done for "the other"
flags attribute, but not so much with how flower and u32 handles
flags. I like the stricter approach better, though, so unless someone
speaks up I'll do as you suggest.
