diff mbox series

[net-next,05/18] rtnetlink: Add RTNH_F_TRAP flag

Message ID 20201104133040.1125369-6-idosch@idosch.org
State New
Headers show
Series nexthop: Add support for nexthop objects offload | expand

Commit Message

Ido Schimmel Nov. 4, 2020, 1:30 p.m. UTC 
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>

The flag indicates to user space that the nexthop is not programmed to
forward packets in hardware, but rather to trap them to the CPU. This is
needed, for example, when the MAC of the nexthop neighbour is not
resolved and packets should reach the CPU to trigger neighbour
resolution.

The flag will be used in subsequent patches by netdevsim to test nexthop
objects programming to device drivers and in the future by mlxsw as
well.

Changes since RFC:
* Reword commit message

Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
---
 include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h | 6 ++++--
 net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c       | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski Nov. 6, 2020, 7:12 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed,  4 Nov 2020 15:30:27 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
>  	*flags |= (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);

>  	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_OFFLOAD)

>  		*flags |= RTNH_F_OFFLOAD;

> +	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_TRAP)

> +		*flags |= RTNH_F_TRAP;


Out of curiosity - why use this if construct like OFFLOAD rather than
the more concise mask like ONLINK does? In fact looks like the mask
could just be extended there instead?
Ido Schimmel Nov. 9, 2020, 3:35 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:12:21AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed,  4 Nov 2020 15:30:27 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:

> >  	*flags |= (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);

> >  	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_OFFLOAD)

> >  		*flags |= RTNH_F_OFFLOAD;

> > +	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_TRAP)

> > +		*flags |= RTNH_F_TRAP;

> 

> Out of curiosity - why use this if construct like OFFLOAD rather than

> the more concise mask like ONLINK does?


Good question :)

> In fact looks like the mask could just be extended there instead?


Yes, good suggestion. Will do that.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
index fdd408f6a5d2..a0d3363c6bd3 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
@@ -396,11 +396,13 @@  struct rtnexthop {
 #define RTNH_F_DEAD		1	/* Nexthop is dead (used by multipath)	*/
 #define RTNH_F_PERVASIVE	2	/* Do recursive gateway lookup	*/
 #define RTNH_F_ONLINK		4	/* Gateway is forced on link	*/
-#define RTNH_F_OFFLOAD		8	/* offloaded route */
+#define RTNH_F_OFFLOAD		8	/* Nexthop is offloaded */
 #define RTNH_F_LINKDOWN		16	/* carrier-down on nexthop */
 #define RTNH_F_UNRESOLVED	32	/* The entry is unresolved (ipmr) */
+#define RTNH_F_TRAP		64	/* Nexthop is trapping packets */
 
-#define RTNH_COMPARE_MASK	(RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN | RTNH_F_OFFLOAD)
+#define RTNH_COMPARE_MASK	(RTNH_F_DEAD | RTNH_F_LINKDOWN | \
+				 RTNH_F_OFFLOAD | RTNH_F_TRAP)
 
 /* Macros to handle hexthops */
 
diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
index 1f75dc686b6b..f70b9a0c4957 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
@@ -1644,6 +1644,8 @@  int fib_nexthop_info(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct fib_nh_common *nhc,
 	*flags |= (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
 	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_OFFLOAD)
 		*flags |= RTNH_F_OFFLOAD;
+	if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_TRAP)
+		*flags |= RTNH_F_TRAP;
 
 	if (!skip_oif && nhc->nhc_dev &&
 	    nla_put_u32(skb, RTA_OIF, nhc->nhc_dev->ifindex))