[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU3EuioDavDQAXMuuyRAXPQn2O+hOmnwcWMawrusNiX4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:09:15 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
solar@...nwall.com, Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
avagin@...tuozzo.com, xemul@...tuozzo.com, vdavydov@...tuozzo.com,
khorenko@...tuozzo.com, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4 -- Introduce ifa limit per net
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:55 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> Indeed, good catch. Therefore:
>
> 1) Keep the masq netdev notifier. That will flush the conntrack table
> for the inetdev_destroy event.
>
> 2) Make the inetdev notifier only do something if inetdev->dead is
> false. (ie. we are flushing an individual address)
>
> And then we don't need the NETDEV_UNREGISTER thing at all:
This makes sense to me. I guess similar thing needs to do for IPv6 masq too.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists