On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:03:36AM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
> On 11/18/25 3:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:38:59AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
> >> Add support for IP_USER type rules from ethtool.
> >>
> >> +static void parse_ip4(struct iphdr *mask, struct iphdr *key,
> >> + const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs)
> >> +{
> >> + const struct ethtool_usrip4_spec *l3_mask = &fs->m_u.usr_ip4_spec;
> >> + const struct ethtool_usrip4_spec *l3_val = &fs->h_u.usr_ip4_spec;
> >> +
> >> + mask->saddr = l3_mask->ip4src;
> >> + mask->daddr = l3_mask->ip4dst;
> >> + key->saddr = l3_val->ip4src;
> >> + key->daddr = l3_val->ip4dst;
> >> +
> >> + if (l3_mask->proto) {
> >
> > you seem to check mask for proto here but the ethtool_usrip4_spec doc
> > seems to say the mask for proto must be 0.
> >
> >
> > what gives?
> >
>
> Then for user_ip flows ethtool should provide 0 as the mask, and based
> on your comment below I'm verifying that.
but if it does then how did this patch work in your testing?
> I can move this hunk to the TCP/UDP patch if you prefer.
not sure what you mean so I can't comment on that.
generally it's best to add code in the same patch where
it's used - easier to review.
--
MST
