Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:49:07PM CEST, wrote:
>On 16-10-13 04:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:29:57AM CEST, wrote:
>> > On 10/12/16, 5:41 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > From: Jiri Pirko <>
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > we spoke with yotam about this at netdev1.2. and also remember speaking 
>> > about this on our switchdev calls:
>> > Today our driver uses NFLOG to log packets to a netlink socket and hsflowd 
>> > supported by the sflow
>> > people (at is capable of reading from a nflog 
>> > socket. NFLOG has the required netlink
>> > attribute markers for packet header/data (which we can possibly extend). 
>> > We could also add nflog like action
>> > in tc if needed.
>> > 
>> > sflow agents like hsflowd are capable of sending packets to an external 
>> > collector with the required sflow header.
>> > Instead of re-inventing a new API for sflow, would be better to 
>> > standardize/unify on existing mechanisms.
>> > 
>> > Also, this patch series requires a new device to be created which can be 
>> > avoided if we used
>> > existing mechanisms like NFLOG.
>> When I was first thinking about re-using NFLOG, it seemed like an
>> abusal. We need to call it from driver directly, which sounds odd.
>> However, since we use sample_packet_pack function to wrap it up, the
>> NFLOG is called from the tc action code, it does not look bad.
>> Yet still, this has nothing in common with netfilter, only using it's
>> log facilities. That is odd.
>Sorry, had not seen the code until now; helps me get perspective.
>If you are going to require  netfilter just so you can do this - it
>sounds so wrong (since you already provides a hook for tc offloading
>into the switch for other functions).


>Roopa, did you mean eth1 as the new device or did you mean just in
>general config requiring a device to be specified or did you mean a new
>cpu netdev being needed? I couldnt tell from the patch.

You just have to have some netdev to use to funnel the IFE headered
sample skbs to userspace. A dummy or a tap.

>> I think that the IFE ways is way more clear and generic and not-abusing.
>> However you are right the NFLOG way has advantage of existing user
>> component. I'm not sure how to do this :(
>Can you do NFLOG to user space without requiring netfilter compiled in?
>One advantage with IFE is it is a wire protocol - so you can have the
>sflow collector/aggregator sit on a different machine (for small cpu
>switches makes sense). So modifying the sflow daemon to accept IFE
>formatted data is an interesting!

Agreed. For me, that looks like the correct way to do this.


Reply via email to