[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSeYvcdtNf7N=POD+RzsE01+WVsub6F_nqbn06RZyoWx8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:28:25 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
To: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches
Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical,
but for completeness:
These two patches each add an xtables match.
The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of
xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I
have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in
kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com> wrote:
> The second patch is more speculative and aims to be a more general
> workaround, as well as a performance optimization: support
> (preferably JIT compiled) BPF programs as iptables match rules.
>
> Potentially, the skb->priority match can be implemented by applying
> only the second patch and adding a new BPF_S_ANC ancillary field to
> Linux Socket Filters.
>
> I also wrote corresponding userspace patches to iptables. The process
> for submitting both kernel and user patches is not 100% clear to me.
> Sending the kernel bits to both netdev and netfilter-devel for
> initial feedback. Please correct me if you want it another way.
>
> The patches apply to net-next.
>
--
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