From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcus Sundberg <marcus@ingate.com>
Subject: ctnetlink unique id size?
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:41:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4214D75D.5070005@ingate.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

Hi,

isn't an unsigned int a bit (or rather about 32 bits) small for
keeping the id field of the ip_conntrack struct? It's bound to wrap
around, and with things like long-lived ssh sessions it's even
possible for two connections to be assigned the same id after a
wrap-around.

Am I missing something obvious when I think ctnetlink_dump_table()
will break down when the wrap-around occurs?

Using an uint64_t would on the other hand guarantee that each
connection really get a unique id.

//Marcus
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------
   Marcus Sundberg <marcus@ingate.com>  | Firewalls with SIP & NAT
  Software Developer, Ingate Systems AB |  http://www.ingate.com/