On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:02 AM Martin Olsson <martin.olsson+net...@sentorsecurity.com> wrote: > > Hi Cong! > > Ah sorry. > Already implemented. Great! > > Hmmm. Then why don't the manual at > https://www.linux.org/docs/man8/tc-mirred.html to reflect the changes? > That was the place I checked to see if ingress was still not implemented. > In the commit you point at, the sentence "Currently only egress is > implemented" has been removed.
This means that website is out-of-date, not sync'ed with latest man pages. > > > Question: > Is there any form of performance penalty if I send the mirrored traffic to > the ingress queue of the destination interface rather than to the egress > queue? > I mean, in the kernel there is the possibility to perform far more actions on > the ingress queue than on the egress, but if I leave both queues at their > defaults, will mirrored packets to ingress use more CPU cycles than to the > egress destination, or are they more or less identical? > Hard to say without measurement. There is no queue on ingress side, by the way, so it could be faster than egress, regarding to lock contentions on queues. > > Question 2: > Given the commit > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/commit/?id=5eca0a3701223619a513c7209f7d9335ca1b4cfa, > how can I see in what kernel version it was added? > The kernel commit is: commit 53592b3640019f2834701093e38272fdfd367ad8 Author: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com> Date: Thu Oct 13 09:06:44 2016 +0300 net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions which is merged in 4.10. Thanks.
