Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 12:09:24AM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>
>As the tcm_ifindex 0 is invalid ifindex, reuse it to indicate that we
>work with block, instead of qdisc. So if tcm_ifindex is 0, tcm_parent is
>used to carry block_index.
>
>If the block is set to be shared between at least 2 qdiscs, it is
>forbidden to use the qdisc handle to add/delete filters. In that case,
>userspace has to pass block_index.
>
>Also, for dump of the filters, in case the block is shared in between at
>least 2 qdiscs, the each filter is dumped with tcm_ifindex 0 and
>tcm_parent set to block_index. That gives the user clear indication,
>that the filter belongs to a shared block and not only to one qdisc
>under which it is dumped.
>
>Suggested-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>---
[...]
>@@ -886,8 +887,13 @@ static int tcf_fill_node(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>*skb,
> tcm->tcm_family = AF_UNSPEC;
> tcm->tcm__pad1 = 0;
> tcm->tcm__pad2 = 0;
>- tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>- tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>+ if (q) {
>+ tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>+ tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>+ } else {
>+ tcm->tcm_ifindex = 0; /* block index is stored in parent */
>+ tcm->tcm_parent = block->index;
>+ }
Please guys, please look at this reuse (also on clt side). I would like
you to double-check this reuse of existing API for balock_index carrying
purpose. I believe it's UAPI safe. But please, check it out carefully.
