Re: RFC: Disable defered bridge hooks by default

[Amin Azez <azez@ufomechanic.net>]

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Amin Azez wrote:
>> This leads me to suggest addition of ipt_marks instead of ipt_mark
>>
>> Not only is "the" mark overutilized but the problems of managing free
>> bit-ranges in iptables/ebtables (if/when ebtables supports masking) will
>> also be too troublesome to bear.
>>
>> I re-suggest adding multiple on-demand storage slots to conntrack (and
>> now also skb's), for storing labelled cookie-type values tor checking
>> later, by iptables or ebtables or any-other.
>>
>> My I copy my latest RFC attempt here (still a work in progress)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Do these overheads waste any advantage in merely trying to save space in
>> the conntrack?
>>
>> Do this neatly solve the problem of passing state between tables?
>>
>> Do these overheads waste any advantage in using the conntrack as a
>> caching mechanism?
> 
> I would prefer to see some code before commenting. My gut feeling
> is that it is overly complex. Have you looked at Rusty's ct_extend?


Thankyou for pointing this out. I guess ct_extend is what I am after.
And where the extended storage is an integer it ought to be easily
available from *_tables.

I'll give this a go over.

Sam