From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] netfilter: conntrack: remove timer from ecache extension Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:09:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20140328130934.GB4682@breakpoint.cc> References: <1395943238-29319-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <20140328103203.GA12225@localhost> <20140328111031.GG21741@breakpoint.cc> <20140328111440.GA12728@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:44191 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751227AbaC1NJf (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:09:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140328111440.GA12728@localhost> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:10:31PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > I'm mainly interested if you think timer removal is worthwile, > > > > it works well in practice from usability POV. > > > > > > Thanks for looking again into this. We definitely have to get rid of > > > that timer. > > > > > > Regarding the new flag, perhaps we can avoid exposing this to > > > userspace? I mean, we can define some mask of internal flags that we > > > don't include via dump_status in ctnetlink. > > > > What is your rationale for supressing this information? > > [ or, why is exposing this to userspace bad? ] > > I think that flag provides no useful information to userspace. Fair enough. > > Is it so we don't have to keep dummy flag when we find a different > > solution later? > > Right, that's another good reason not to expose that information to > userspace. Alright, I'll create a separate patch that adds mask of 'public' flags that will be dumped to userspace. Will send it along with another spin of this patch next week or so.