> On 22 Mar 2019, at 21:31, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:50 PM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
> <l...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 22 Mar 2019, at 20:05, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
>>> <l...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Cong,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your questions.
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Mar 2019, at 17:39, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:09 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant
>>>>> <l...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conndscp is a new tc filter action module. It is designed to copy DSCPs
>>>>>> to conntrack marks and the reverse operation of conntrack mark contained
>>>>>> DSCPs to the diffserv field of suitable skbs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible and feasible to integrate this into connmark?
>>>>
>>>> I started off coding it that way but quickly ran into my limitations with
>>>> netlink messaging and became frustrated. Aside from my own limitations,
>>>> conndscp ab/uses tcf_qstats requeues & overlimits to indicate
>>>> DSCP->MARK->DSCP operations and has been useful in proving DSCP/marking
>>>> operations are occurring in the right times/places. Integrating with
>>>> connmark which itself uses overlimits to indicate conntrack mark to
>>>> skb->mark restoration would lose that differentiation/confirmation/debug
>>>> ability. A possibility is to ab/use the drop count instead but I fear
>>>> that would cause confusion.
>>>
>>> This sounds problematic, why a flag/parameter doesn't work?
>>>
>> I don’t understand the question?
>
> You said conndscp uses some stat to save some configuration
> information, that is, DSCP->MARK->DSCP operations. But
> configuration information is usually saved in a parameter struct
> or some priviate flag. So, I have to ask why a flag/parameter doesn't
> work for this case?
>
> And, you also implied this is a barrier for you to reuse connmark
> action.
>
> Am I misunderstanding anything here?
Ahh! I understand the question, apologies if I was not clear. conndscp like
connmark reports some status information back to tc via tcf_qstats structure.
connmark uses ‘overlimits’ to report the number of marks restored from
conntrack->mark to skb->mark. conndscp uses ‘overlimits’ and ‘requeues’ to
report status about how many marks it has restored/set. e.g.
root@Router:~# tc -s filter show dev eth0
filter parent cacf: protocol all pref 10 u32 chain 0
filter parent cacf: protocol all pref 10 u32 chain 0 fh 800: ht divisor 1
filter parent cacf: protocol all pref 10 u32 chain 0 fh 800::800 order 2048 key
ht 800 bkt 0 flowid 1:1 not_in_hw
match 00000000/00000000 at 0
action order 1: conndscp zone 0 pipe
index 1 ref 1 bind 1 mask 0xfc000000 statemask 0x01000000 mode both
installed 119695 sec used 0 sec
Action statistics:
Sent 944294567 bytes 4390248 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 2366576
requeues 50157) <<— here
backlog 0b 0p requeues 50157
I explained (badly) that merging ‘connmark’ and ‘conndscp’ would present an
issue (to me) of how to report both types of statistics (connmark skb->mark
restores & conndscp connmark->skb->ip-diffserv restores &
skb->ipdiffserv->connmark->mark stores)
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Both are intended to retrieve information from conntrack and store
>>>>> it into skb. I know the name "connmark" already says it is a mark,
>>>>> while yours isn't, I still want to see if we can avoid code duplications.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your quest :-) I think conndscp does a bit more than
>>>> connmark. Conndscp is two way diffserv<-->conntrack mark operation.
>>>> connmark is a single way conntrack mark->skb.mark operation.
>>>
>>> I am not sure if it is a good idea to modify conntrack in TC,
>>> as conntrack doesn't even belong to TC. Retrieving information
>>> from conntrack and saving it to skb is fine, as we modify skb
>>> in many different ways.
>>
>> OK, this is why I wanted to ask as RFC before I went too far implementing
>> stuff. AFAIUI you’re saying it’s tc is okay to restore stuff from a
>> connmark but not to set/change the conntrack mark. So I need to find a
>> legal place to store a DSCP into a conntrack mark.
>
> Yes.
>
> I guess you should look into netfilter to modify any conntrack attribute,
> it is at least where conntrack belongs to. :)
So I wonder if an XT_CONNMARK_SAVEDSCP option in xt_connmark would be more
acceptable?
Your patience & advice appreciated.
Cheers,
Kevin D-B
gpg: 012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775 9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A
