[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180219151555.GA23857@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:15:55 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: fw@...len.de, daniel@...earbox.net, laforge@...monks.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] net: add bpfilter
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59:35 +0100
>
> > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >> It also means that the scope of developers who can contribute and work
> >> on the translater is much larger.
> >
> > How so? Translator is in userspace in nftables case too?
>
> Florian, first of all, the whole "change the iptables binary" idea is
> a non-starter. For the many reasons I have described in the various
> postings I have made today.
>
> It is entirely impractical.
???????
You suggest:
iptables -> setsockopt -> umh (xtables -> ebpf) -> kernel
How is this different from
iptables -> setsockopt -> umh (Xtables -> nftables -> kernel
?
EBPF can be placed within nftables either userspace or kernel,
there is nothing that prevents this.
> Anything designed in that nature must be distributed completely in the
> kernel tree, so that the iptables kernel ABI is provided without any
> externel dependencies.
Would you be willing to merge nftables into kernel tools directory then?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists