[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKxSbF1cxKOLTFNZG40HLN-gAYnYM+8dXH_04vQ8+v3KXdAq8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:45:09 -0500
From: Alex Forster <aforster@...udflare.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Kyle Bowman <kbowman@...udflare.com>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_NFLOG: allow 128 character log prefixes
> Yes, you can update iptables-nft to use nft_log instead of xt_LOG,
> that requires no kernel upgrades and it will work with older kernels.
I've always been under the impression that mixing xtables and nftables
was impossible. Forgive me, but I just want to clarify one more time:
you're saying we should be able to modify iptables-nft such that the
following rule will use xt_bpf to match a packet and then nft_log to
log it, rather than xt_log as it does today?
iptables-nft -A test-chain -d 11.22.33.44/32 -m bpf --bytecode
"1,6 0 0 65536" -j NFLOG --nflog-prefix
"0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789"
We had some unexplained performance loss when we were evaluating
switching to iptables-nft, but if this sort of mixing is possible then
it is certainly worth reevaluating.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists