Re: Extending connmark to 64 bits

[Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>]

Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 04:00 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> > > Currently we have a number of router features making use of connection
> > > tracking. As such we now require more than the 32 bits connmark
> > > currently has. Our first inclination is to extend this field to 64 bits
> > > and update related areas of code appropriately.
> > > 
> > > The major question we have is whether there is a reason this field is 32
> > > bits (performance reasons or other)?
> > 
> > Its meant to align with skb->mark.
> 
> I thought that could be the case. Probably the wrong mailing-list to be
> asking this on but is increasing the number of bits for the skb->mark
> then a possibility?

Increase sk_buff size?  Doubtful.

> The number of bits available for marking becomes the
> limiting factor when you have a number of applications needing to mark
> packets.

Now I am confused.  You mentioned connmark.

Are you marking packets or connections?

Why are 2**32 marks not sufficient?