On 2021-11-03 10:03, Baowen Zheng wrote:

Thanks for your reply.
On November 3, 2021 9:34 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 2021-11-03 08:33, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 2021-11-03 07:30, Baowen Zheng wrote:

quoted

On November 3, 2021 6:14 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

[..]

Sorry for more clarification about another case that Vlad mentioned:
#add a policer action with skip_hw
tc actions add action police skip_hw rate ... index 20
#Now add a  filter5 which has no flag
tc filter add dev $DEV1 proto ip parent ffff: flower \
        ip_proto icmp action police index 20
I think the filter5 could be legal, since it will not run in hardware.
Driver will check failed when try to offload this filter. So the filter5 will only run in software.
WDYT?

I think this one also has ambiguity. If the filter doesnt specify 
skip_sw or skip_hw it will run both in s/w and h/w. I am worried if
that looks suprising to someone debugging after because in h/w
there is filter 5 but no policer but in s/w twin we have filter 5
and policer index 20.
It could be design intent, but in my opinion we have priorities
to resolve such ambiguities in policies.

If we use the rule which says the flags have to match exactly then we
can simplify resolving any ambiguity - which will make it illegal, no?

cheers,
jamal