netdev - Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack

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

Message-ID: <4C08F1A4.2050906@trash.net>
Date:	Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:29:24 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Netfilter Developers <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack_untracked

Changli Gao wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Obviously, an IPS_UNTRACKED bit would be much easier to implement.
>>> Would it be acceptable ?
>> That also would be fine. However the main idea behind using a nfctinfo
>> bit was that we wouldn't need the untracked conntrack anymore at all.
>> But I guess a per-cpu untrack conntrack would already be an improvement
>> over the current situation.
> 
> I think Eric didn't mean ip_conntrack_info but ip_conntrack_status
> bit. Since we have had a IPS_TEMPLATE bit, I think another
> IPS_UNTRACKED bit is also acceptable.

Yes, of course. But using one of these bits implies that we'd still
have the untracked conntrack.
--
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