netdev - Re: Optimizing tc filters

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:	Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:01:46 -0500
From:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Optimizing tc filters

On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 21:10 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 14:58 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> 
> > If we are using connection tracking in general to produce a "stateful"
> > firewall (let's just say we are - I certainly don't want to set off a
> > debate :) ), does that put #1 back on top as the most efficient since we
> > are incurring the conntrack overhead anyway or does the CONNMARK target
> > itself add considerable overhead? Thanks - John
> > 
> 
> CONNMARK is very cheap, no extra overhead.
> 
> 
OK - so I'll assume that, if using conntrac anyway, the order of
efficiency is as I outlined and, if not, #1 sinks to the bottom.  If
that's not accurate, please let me know.  Thanks for your help - John

--
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