[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150429234251.GB3416@salvia>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:42:51 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: move qdisc ingress filtering on top of
netfilter ingress hooks
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 02:53:58PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/sched/Kconfig b/net/sched/Kconfig
> > index 2274e72..23b57da 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/Kconfig
> > +++ b/net/sched/Kconfig
> > @@ -312,6 +312,7 @@ config NET_SCH_PIE
> > config NET_SCH_INGRESS
> > tristate "Ingress Qdisc"
> > depends on NET_CLS_ACT
> > + select NETFILTER_INGRESS
> > ---help---
> > Say Y here if you want to use classifiers for incoming packets.
> > If unsure, say Y.
>
>
> So now it impossible to compile ingress Qdics without netfilters...
>
> (I know you moved them into net/core/, but still they are netfilter API's.)
This is only one single file that only contains the very basic hook
infrastructure, this does not depend on the layer 3.
> Why do we have to mix different layers? IOW, why not just keep TC at L2
> and netfilters at L3 even just w.r.t. API?
I think that used to be true in the iptables days... The nftables
infrastructure is flexible and extensible enough to satisfy the needs
of other network layers.
--
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