[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXf/tlpw0ARmS8j5@salvia>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:16:38 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
lschlesinger@...venets.com, dsahern@...nel.org, crosser@...rage.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of
lower/physdev for locally generated packets
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:58PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > If the motion for these hooks in the driver is to match for 'oif vrf',
> > now that there is an egress hook, it might make more sense to filter
> > from there based on the interface rather than adding these hook calls
> > from the vrf driver?
> >
> > I wonder if, in the future, it makes sense to entirely disable these
> > hooks in the vrf driver and rely on egress hook?
>
> Agree, it would be better to support ingress+egress hhoks from vrf
> so vrf specific filtering can be done per-device.
>
> I don't think we can just remove the existing NF_HOOK()s in vrf though.
I understand, there are people relying on this.
> We could add toggles to disable them, but I'm not sure how to best
> expose that (ip link attribute, ethtool, sysctl ...)...?
I would make it global toggle. As you mentioned it might be good to
explore an alternative to this via the ingress+egress hooks now that
the usecases are better known?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists