On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:33:41AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:12 AM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan
> <subas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds support for OUTPUT_MARK in xfrm state to exercise the
> > functionality added by kernel commit 077fbac405bf
> > ("net: xfrm: support setting an output mark.").
> >
> > Sample output with output-mark -
> >
> > src 192.168.1.1 dst 192.168.1.2
> > proto esp spi 0x00004321 reqid 0 mode tunnel
> > replay-window 0 flag af-unspec
> > auth-trunc xcbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b211 96
> > enc cbc(aes) 0x3ed0af408cf5dcbf5d5d9a5fa806b233
> > anti-replay context: seq 0x0, oseq 0x0, bitmap 0x00000000
> > output-mark 0x20000
>
> Have you considered putting this earlier up in the output, where the
> mark is printed as well?
>
> > + if (tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]) {
> > + __u32 output_mark = rta_getattr_u32(tb[XFRMA_OUTPUT_MARK]);
> > +
> > + fprintf(fp, "\toutput-mark 0x%x %s", output_mark, _SL_);
> > + }
> > }
>
> If you wanted to implement the suggestion above, I think you could do
> that by moving this code into xfrm_xfrma_print.
>
> Other than that, LGTM.
>
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com>
>
> Steffen - what's the status of the set_mark patches? Are you holding
> them until the tree opens again?
Yes, I hold them back until after v4.18-rc1 is released and the
-next trees open again. But I plan to do a RFC version this week,
so that everybody knows about the plan we have.
