On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:54:51PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Simon Horman > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:20:06PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> TTL can and should be used to match on IPv6's hop-limit, fix that. > > >> Fixes: ab7ecf266b0a ('netdev-tc-offloads: Add nw_ttl matching using > >> flower') > >> Fixes: 0b4b5203d12e ('tc: Add ip layer ttl matching') > > >> --- a/lib/netdev-tc-offloads.c > >> +++ b/lib/netdev-tc-offloads.c > >> @@ -1025,8 +1025,10 @@ netdev_tc_flow_put(struct netdev *netdev, struct > >> match *match, > >> if (is_ip_any(key)) { > >> flower.key.ip_proto = key->nw_proto; > >> flower.mask.ip_proto = mask->nw_proto; > >> + mask->nw_proto = 0; > >> flower.key.ip_ttl = key->nw_ttl; > >> flower.mask.ip_ttl = mask->nw_ttl; > >> + mask->nw_ttl = 0; > >> > >> if (mask->nw_frag & FLOW_NW_FRAG_ANY) { > >> flower.mask.flags |= TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS_IS_FRAGMENT; > >> @@ -1073,8 +1075,6 @@ netdev_tc_flow_put(struct netdev *netdev, struct > >> match *match, > >> } > >> > >> mask->nw_tos = 0; > >> - mask->nw_proto = 0; > >> - mask->nw_ttl = 0; > > > > I'm not sure that I understand the purpose of the changes above. > > They seem to shuffle setting two mask values from one place to another. > > But what is the effect of this? > > Setting mask->zzz to 0 means we consumed (== set into the mask > of the tc rule) the zzz field. The convention in the code is to have > this zeroing near the spot where you consume the field, I aligned > this code to that convention while fixing the bug.
Understood, likewise for my similar comment on patch #2. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
