Hi Cong, Thanks for getting back to me once again and apologies for the delayed reply.
> On 25 Mar 2019, at 19:17, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:45 AM Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant > <l...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote: >> >> I will remove the functionality from conndscp that changes the conntrack >> mark, so that it only restores the mark into the diffserv field. >> >> So that I’m clear about which direction I should be headed: >> >> Bearing in mind that conndscp writes to the skb’s iphdr diffserv field and >> *not* skb->fwmark, do you still desire to see the dscp restoration code done >> as part of connmark. In other words NOT have a separate conndscp module? >> > > For me, the barrier is the name "connmark" is confusing if we put conndscp > into it. So, I think leaving conndscp alone is fine. > > Perhaps we just need an action called "act_conntrack" which could retrieve > any meaningful information from conntrack to skb. > > What do you think? Hmm. A number of thoughts flash through the brain cell: 1) I obviously can’t think of anything else that would/could sensibly be restored from conntrack to skb, but then to my knowledge no one else has yet wanted to restore DSCP, so that’s hardly a good excuse. 2) laziness/fear/lack of skill, I’ve no idea how to go about coding something like that in an extendable, quick and efficient manner. 3) keeping it simple. I’m working on a simplified conndscp, probably a few days yet for testing/checking - see if that ends up as something more suitable. > > Thanks. Cheers, Kevin D-B gpg: 012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775 9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A
