RE: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for filter-mirror/redirector

[Zhang, Chen]

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if we need to introduce new parameter, e.g force_vnet_hdr
> > > > here, then we can always send vnet_hdr when it is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise the "vnet_hdr_support" seems meaningless.
> > >
> > > Yes, Current "vnet_hdr_support"  default enabled, and vnet_hdr_len
> > already forced from attached nf->netdev.
> > > Maybe we can introduce a new parameter "force_no_vnet_hdr" here to
> > make the vnet_hdr_len always keep 0.
> > > If you think OK, I will update it in next version.
> >
> > Let me explain, if I was not wrong:
> >
> > "vnet_hdr_support" means whether or not to send vnet header length. If
> > vnet_hdr_support=false, we won't send the vnet header. This looks the
> > same as you "force_no_vent_hdr" above.
> 
> Yes, It was.  But this series changed it.
> Current "vnet_hdr_support" can't decide whether send vnet header length,
> we always send it even 0.
> It will avoid sender/receiver transfer protocol parse issues:
> When sender data with the vnet header length, but receiver can't enable the
> "vnet_hdr_support".
> Filters will auto setup vnet_hdr_len as local nf->netdev and found the issue
> when get different vnet_hdr_len from other filters.
> 
> >
> > And my "force_vnet_hdr" seems duplicated with vnet_hdr_support=true.
> > So it looks to me we can leave the mirror code as is and just change
> > the compare? (depends on the mgmt to set a correct vnet_hdr_support)
> 
> OK, I will keep the filter-mirror/filter-redirector/filter-rewriter same as 
> this
> version.
> For the colo-compare module, It will get primary node's filter data's
> vnet_hdr_len as the local value, And compare with secondary node's,
> because it is not attached any nf->netdev.
> So, it looks compare module's "vnet_hdr_support" been auto configuration
> from the filter transport protocol.
> If the "force_vnet_hdr" means hard code a compare's local vnet_hdr_len
> rather than come from input filter's data?
> 
> Thanks
> Chen
> 

Hi Jason/Markus,

Rethink about it, How about keep the original "vnet_hdr_support" function, 
And add a new optional parameter "auto_vnet_hdr" for filters/compare?

Thanks
Chen 


> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Chen
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >