[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210727230230.GA30104@salvia>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 01:02:30 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Alex Forster <aforster@...udflare.com>
Cc: Kyle Bowman <kbowman@...udflare.com>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_NFLOG: allow 128 character log prefixes
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:45:09PM -0500, Alex Forster wrote:
> > Yes, you can update iptables-nft to use nft_log instead of xt_LOG,
> > that requires no kernel upgrades and it will work with older kernels.
>
> I've always been under the impression that mixing xtables and nftables
> was impossible. Forgive me, but I just want to clarify one more time:
> you're saying we should be able to modify iptables-nft such that the
> following rule will use xt_bpf to match a packet and then nft_log to
> log it, rather than xt_log as it does today?
You could actually use *any* of the existing extensions to match a
packet, the matching side is completely irrelevant to this picture.
As I said, userspace iptables-nft can be updated to use nft_log
instead of xt_LOG.
> iptables-nft -A test-chain -d 11.22.33.44/32 -m bpf --bytecode
> "1,6 0 0 65536" -j NFLOG --nflog-prefix
> "0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789"
>
> We had some unexplained performance loss when we were evaluating
> switching to iptables-nft, but if this sort of mixing is possible then
> it is certainly worth reevaluating.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists