[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080905025838.GA2789@x200.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:58:38 +0400
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/38] netns ct: NOTRACK in netns
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:54:16PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> adobriyan@...il.com wrote:
>> Make untracked conntrack per-netns. Compare conntracks with relevant
>> untracked one.
>>
>> The following code you'll start laughing at this code:
>>
>> if (ct == ct->ct_net->ct.untracked)
>> ...
>>
>> let me remind you that ->ct_net is set in only one place, and never
>> overwritten later.
>>
>> All of this requires some surgery with headers, otherwise horrible circular
>> dependencies. And we lost nf_ct_is_untracked() as function, it became macro.
>
> I think you could avoid this mess by using a struct nf_conntrack
> for the untracked conntrack instead of struct nf_conn. It shouldn't
> make any difference since its ignored anyways.
Ewww, can I?
Regardless of netns, switching to
struct nf_conntrack nf_conntrack_untracked;
means we must be absolutely sure that every place which uses, say,
ct->status won't get untracked conntrack.
For example, does setting IPS_NAT_DONE_MASK and IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT on
untracked conntracked really necessary?
In conntrack_mt_v0() "ct->status" can be used even for untracked connection,
is this right?
>> struct netns_ct {
>> atomic_t count;
>> @@ -12,5 +13,7 @@ struct netns_ct {
>> struct hlist_head *expect_hash;
>> int expect_vmalloc;
>> struct hlist_head unconfirmed;
>> + /* Fake conntrack entry for untracked connections */
>> + struct nf_conn untracked;
>> };
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists