Re: [PATCH 0/1] netfilter: connmark: introduce set-dscpmark

[Jeremy Sowden <jeremy@azazel.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

On 2019-12-03, at 16:06:52 +0000, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
> Greetings.  The following patch is similar to one I submitted as an
> RFC quite a while back (April).  Since then I've realised that the
> option should have been in the 'set mark' family as opposed to 'save
> mark' because 'set' is about setting the ct mark directly, whereas
> 'save' is about copying a packet's mark to the ct mark.
>
> Similarly I've been made aware of the revision infrastructure and now
> that I understand that a little more have made use of it for this
> change.  Hopefully this addresses one of Pablo's concerns.
>
> I've not been able to address the 'I'd like an nftables version'.
> Quite simply it is beyond my knowledge and ability.  I am willing to
> contribute financially if someone wishes to step up to the nftables
> plate...yes I'd like to see the functionality implemented *that* much.

I'll do it (no financial contribution required :)). There is one thing I
want to find out before I get started.

Pablo, comparing the x_tables and nftables connmark implementations I
see that nftables doesn't support all the bit-twiddling that x_tables
does.  Why is this?  Was it not wanted or has it just not been imple-
mented?

J.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]