* jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-06-30 09:57
> On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 15:08 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > That creates a nice loop on ingress. Upon reentering the
> > stack with skb->dev set to eth0 again we'll go through the
> > same ingress filters as the first time and we'll hit ifb0
> > again over and over.
>
> loops are taken care of by other metadata.
Not really, assuming a simple setup such as:
mirred attached to eth0 redirecting to ifb0
mirred attached to ifb0 redirecting to ifb1
will result in:
eth0::tcf_mirred() skb->dev = ifb0, input_dev = eth0
ifb0::tcf_mirred() skb->dev = ifb1, input_dev = ifb0
ifb1::ifb_xmit() skb->dev = ifb0, input_dev = ifb1, set ncls bit
ifb0::ifb_xmit() skb->dev = ifb1, input_dev = ifb0
ifb1::ifb_xmit() skb->dev = ifb0, input_dev = ifb1
...
Oh dear... and we don't even have a ttl to catch this.
> I am going to ignore the patch until we resolve the issue of iif vs
> input_dev. Why dont we discuss that?
It's starting to get useless to discuss with you. You agreed in
your last posting that the 3rd option, being that not caring about
whether a device might disappear but having a way to check for it,
is what we agreed on and what makes most sense, yet you fail to see
that using ifindex is exactly what reflects this descision.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
