[ovs-dev] [PATCH v9 net-next 4/7] openvswitch: add layer 3 flow/port support

[Simon Horman]

Hi Jiri,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 02:06:18PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2016 17:18:20 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:35:04AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > > In addition, we should check whether mac_len > 0 and in such case,
> > > change skb->protocol to ETH_P_TEB first (and store that value in the
> > > pushed eth header).
> > > 
> > > Similarly on pop_eth, we need to check skb->protocol and if it is
> > > ETH_P_TEB, call eth_type_trans on the modified frame to set the new
> > > skb->protocol correctly. It's probably not that simple, as we'd need a
> > > version of eth_type_trans that doesn't need a net device.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand the interaction with ETH_P_TEB here.
> > 
> > In my mind skb->protocol == ETH_P_TEB may be used early on in OvS's receive
> > processing to find the inner protocol from the packet and at that point
> > skb->protocol is set to that value. And that for further packet processing
> > the fact the packet was received as TEB is transparent.
> 
> Yes but think about the case when you have two Ethernet headers pushed.
> 
> We can either disallow it, or do what I described.
> 
> Specifically, let's assume we have an IP packet with an Ethernet
> header present. skb->protocol is ETH_P_IP. Now, when there's skb_push,
> the correct operation would be setting skb->protocol to ETH_P_TEB,
> pushing a new Ethernet header and filing ETH_P_TEB to the ethertype
> field in the new header. The packet is not ETH_P_IP anymore, as the L2
> header is followed by another Ethernet header now.

Thanks for the clarification, I had not considered the case of two
ethernet headers when I wrote my previous email.

I think that at this stage I would prefer to prohibit push_eth() acting
on a packet which already has an ethernet header. Indeed that is what
my patch-set already does in its modifications of __ovs_nla_copy_actions().

The reason that I lean towards prohibiting this is that I do not
have an easy way to exercise this case within the current patch-set.
And thus this extra complexity seems well suited to being handled handled
incrementally as further work.