[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48C11DF5.9040207@netfilter.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:54:29 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/38] netns ct: NOTRACK in netns
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I hope so :) A different possiblity suggest by Pablo some time ago
> would be to mark untracked packets in skb->nfctinfo and not
> attach a conntrack at all.
Indeed, I remember that :). I left that patch of the table time ago [1].
There's a nf_reset call missing as Patrick said at that time. I can
recover it if you like the idea.
[1]
http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2005-June/020171.html
--
"Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers
--
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