Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> writes:
> I am concerned about adding new opcodes which only make sense if you > offload (or make sense only if you are running in s/w). > > Those opcodes are intended to be generic abstractions so the dispatcher > can decide what to do next. Adding things that are specific only > to scenarios of hardware offload removes that opaqueness. > I must have missed the discussion on ACT_TRAP because it is the > same issue there i.e shouldnt be an opcode. For details see: > https://people.netfilter.org/pablo/netdev0.1/papers/Linux-Traffic-Control-Classifier-Action-Subsystem-Architecture.pdf Trap has been in since 4.13, so 2017ish. It's done and dusted at this point. > IMO: > It seems to me there are two actions here encapsulated in one. > The first is to "trap" and the second is to "drop". > > This is no different semantically than say "mirror and drop" > offload being enunciated by "skip_sw". > > Does the spectrum not support multiple actions? > e.g with a policy like: > match blah action trap action drop skip_sw Trap drops implicitly. We need a "trap, but don't drop". Expressed in terms of existing actions it would be "mirred egress redirect dev $cpu_port". But how to express $cpu_port except again by a HW-specific magic token I don't know.
