| Message ID | 161364896576.1250213.8059418482723660876.stgit@firesoul (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf: Updates for BPF-helper bpf_check_mtu | expand |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:49:53 +0100 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote: > The FIB lookup example[1] show how the IP-header field tot_len > (iph->tot_len) is used as input to perform the MTU check. The recently > added MTU check helper bpf_check_mtu() should also support this type > of MTU check. > > Lets add this feature before merge window, please. This is a followup > to 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU checking"). Which git tree should I send this against bpf-next or bpf, to keep this change together with 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU checking") ?
On 2/19/21 7:36 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:49:53 +0100 > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The FIB lookup example[1] show how the IP-header field tot_len >> (iph->tot_len) is used as input to perform the MTU check. The recently >> added MTU check helper bpf_check_mtu() should also support this type >> of MTU check. >> >> Lets add this feature before merge window, please. This is a followup >> to 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU checking"). > > Which git tree should I send this against bpf-next or bpf, to keep this > change together with 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU > checking") ? Given this is an api change, we'll take this into bpf tree after the pending pr was merged.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 23:34:34 +0100 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > On 2/19/21 7:36 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:49:53 +0100 > > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> The FIB lookup example[1] show how the IP-header field tot_len > >> (iph->tot_len) is used as input to perform the MTU check. The recently > >> added MTU check helper bpf_check_mtu() should also support this type > >> of MTU check. > >> > >> Lets add this feature before merge window, please. This is a followup > >> to 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU checking"). > > > > Which git tree should I send this against bpf-next or bpf, to keep this > > change together with 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU > > checking") ? > > Given this is an api change, we'll take this into bpf tree after the > pending pr was merged. That sounds great, but I noticed that they have not reached bpf-tree yet. And the patches[1][2] disappeared[0] from patchwork as they were archived, which confuse me. As the patchset doesn't apply cleanly (due to whitespace in comment) against bpf-tree, I'll resend it. [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=434987 [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/161364899856.1250213.17435782167100828617.stgit@firesoul/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/161364900363.1250213.9894483265551874755.stgit@firesoul/
The FIB lookup example[1] show how the IP-header field tot_len (iph->tot_len) is used as input to perform the MTU check. The recently added MTU check helper bpf_check_mtu() should also support this type of MTU check. Lets add this feature before merge window, please. This is a followup to 34b2021cc616 ("bpf: Add BPF-helper for MTU checking"). [1] samples/bpf/xdp_fwd_kern.c V2: Fixed spelling and added ACKs from John --- Jesper Dangaard Brouer (2): bpf: BPF-helper for MTU checking add length input selftests/bpf: Tests using bpf_check_mtu BPF-helper input mtu_len param include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 17 ++-- net/core/filter.c | 12 ++- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/check_mtu.c | 4 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_check_mtu.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) --