From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, richard@nod.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next,RFC 2/3] netfilter: ctnetlink: use 64-bit conntrack ID
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:27:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171128202741.GA16528@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171128154509.GB1444@salvia>
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 01:12:06PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> wrote:
> > > static int ctnetlink_flush_conntrack(struct net *net,
> > > @@ -1174,6 +1177,13 @@ static int ctnetlink_del_conntrack(struct net *net, struct sock *ctnl,
> > > nf_ct_put(ct);
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > > }
> > > + } else if (cda[CTA_ID64]) {
> > > + u64 id = ntohl(nla_get_be64(cda[CTA_ID64]));
> >
> > be64_to_cpu()?
> >
> > But at this point we already uniquely identified the conntrack entry
> > so the ID check appears to be unneeded?
> >
> > I never understood existing test either, so this remark isn't specific
> > to your patch.
>
> When the ID was incremental, not a memory address, you could use it to
> specifically refer to a conntrack through tuple + id.
>
> If a conntrack with tuple X is gone, then created again, you refer to
> the right object.
Yes, but why was that needed?!
I understand what it does, I don't understand the use case :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-28 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-28 2:13 [PATCH nf-next,RFC 1/3] netfilter: nf_conntrack: add 64-bit conntrack ID extension Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 2:13 ` [PATCH nf-next,RFC 2/3] netfilter: ctnetlink: use 64-bit conntrack ID Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 12:12 ` Florian Westphal
2017-11-28 15:45 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 20:27 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2017-11-28 2:13 ` [PATCH nf-next,RFC 3/3] netfilter: ctnetlink: randomize 32-bit ID Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 12:18 ` Florian Westphal
2017-11-28 15:46 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 10:54 ` [PATCH nf-next,RFC 1/3] netfilter: nf_conntrack: add 64-bit conntrack ID extension Florian Westphal
2017-11-28 15:44 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 20:43 ` Florian Westphal
2017-11-28 12:16 ` Florian Westphal
2017-11-28 15:57 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-11-28 20:44 ` Florian Westphal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171128202741.GA16528@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.