netdev - Re: [v2 PATCH 1/2] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH based fw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:01:00 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc:	Hans Schillstrom <hans@...illstrom.com>,
	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>,
	kaber@...sh.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 1/2] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH
 based fw

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:38:28PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Monday 2011-11-14 10:19, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Sunday, November 13, 2011 18:05:28 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >> BTW, I think you should split xt_HMARK to ipt_HMARK and ip6t_HMARK
> >> (see recent Florian Westphal patches regarding reserve lookup for
> >> instance).
> >> 
> >> The IPv4 and IPv6 parts for HMARK look so different that I don't think
> >> it makes sense to keep them into one single xt_HMARK thing with all
> >> those conditional ifdefs for IPV6.
> >>
> >Ok I'll do that, for some reason a thought it was better with one module.
> 
> So do I. The module overhead is so much larger.

Yes, it will if both modules are loaded.

I think it depends, if you only load IPv4 support, the overhead will
be smaller than having everything into one module.

But I'm open to more discussion on this, of course.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html