From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org,
Krzysztof Oledzki <ole@ans.pl>
Subject: [LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:53:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A4E1DD.8070001@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701101233080.3029@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 10 2007 06:58, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
>>you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for
>>an external repository please let me know.
>
>
> I would give it a try. Though I would really prefer to have it in the
> kernel and iptables rather than pomng or pomng-external. In my
> opinion that simplifies maintainability. Changes in the netfilter API
> seem to be the most common reason for patching (someone changed the
> xt_match->match and xt_target->target signatures in 2.6.20 again!),
> and keeping out-of-tree modules compiling with kernel-du-jour can be
> an #ifdef pita. Then it's really preferable to have 2.6.18 have a
> xt_FOOBAR with netfilter-2.6.18 signatures, and 2.6.20 with
> netfilter-2.6.20. Especially since many people run distributions with
> RPM/DEBified iptables, so the POM `runme` will not be easy to
> accomplish for the casual user. (I currently do have that issue -
> after doing `svn up` on pomng, I have to manually move the changes to
> (my) kernel rpm and (my) iptables rpm, because the days of `make
> install` are GONE for me - at least I try.)
>
> I understand that POM does not require to compile with all
> kernels-of-the-last-three-months, but this also simplifies
> integration for end users. They do not need to backport/forward port
> indated/outdated out-of-tree modules and, at best, do not even need
> to recompile the kernel.
>
> Of course there are some modules that continue being out-of-tree
> because they would not fit in (imagine a 500K geoip.c with a
> compiled-in big string array). Not sure what to do about them.
> Perhaps do it like chaostables [2.6.18-2.6.20], trying to keep it
> working for a limited set of kernels.
>
> Oh well, that said, my ideal plan would be to get ROUTE TARPIT
> connlimit and u32 into mainline in one go, and perhaps, after review
> and discussion, chaostables and some of the others that live in
> Krzystof's patchlet collection.
ROUTE will not go in, its a bad hack and shouldn't be used (which
is why I would prefer to get rid of it). Haven't looked at TARPIT
and connlimit in a long time, we can think about it.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org,
Krzysztof Oledzki <ole@ans.pl>
Subject: Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:53:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A4E1DD.8070001@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701101233080.3029@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 10 2007 06:58, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
>>you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for
>>an external repository please let me know.
>
>
> I would give it a try. Though I would really prefer to have it in the
> kernel and iptables rather than pomng or pomng-external. In my
> opinion that simplifies maintainability. Changes in the netfilter API
> seem to be the most common reason for patching (someone changed the
> xt_match->match and xt_target->target signatures in 2.6.20 again!),
> and keeping out-of-tree modules compiling with kernel-du-jour can be
> an #ifdef pita. Then it's really preferable to have 2.6.18 have a
> xt_FOOBAR with netfilter-2.6.18 signatures, and 2.6.20 with
> netfilter-2.6.20. Especially since many people run distributions with
> RPM/DEBified iptables, so the POM `runme` will not be easy to
> accomplish for the casual user. (I currently do have that issue -
> after doing `svn up` on pomng, I have to manually move the changes to
> (my) kernel rpm and (my) iptables rpm, because the days of `make
> install` are GONE for me - at least I try.)
>
> I understand that POM does not require to compile with all
> kernels-of-the-last-three-months, but this also simplifies
> integration for end users. They do not need to backport/forward port
> indated/outdated out-of-tree modules and, at best, do not even need
> to recompile the kernel.
>
> Of course there are some modules that continue being out-of-tree
> because they would not fit in (imagine a 500K geoip.c with a
> compiled-in big string array). Not sure what to do about them.
> Perhaps do it like chaostables [2.6.18-2.6.20], trying to keep it
> working for a limited set of kernels.
>
> Oh well, that said, my ideal plan would be to get ROUTE TARPIT
> connlimit and u32 into mainline in one go, and perhaps, after review
> and discussion, chaostables and some of the others that live in
> Krzystof's patchlet collection.
ROUTE will not go in, its a bad hack and shouldn't be used (which
is why I would prefer to get rid of it). Haven't looked at TARPIT
and connlimit in a long time, we can think about it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-10 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-11 19:44 [LARTC] iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-11 19:44 ` ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-12 8:24 ` [LARTC] " ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-12 8:24 ` ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-12 8:33 ` Lutz Jaenicke
2006-12-12 8:34 ` [LARTC] " Patrick McHardy
2006-12-12 8:34 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-12-13 8:31 ` [LARTC] " ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-13 8:31 ` ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-13 8:38 ` [LARTC] " Patrick McHardy
2006-12-13 8:38 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-12-13 9:12 ` [LARTC] " ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-13 9:12 ` ArcosCom Linux User
2006-12-13 9:17 ` [LARTC] " Patrick McHardy
2006-12-13 9:17 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-12-13 11:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-12-13 10:56 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-12-28 21:10 ` Krzysztof Oledzki
2007-01-10 5:58 ` [LARTC] " Patrick McHardy
2007-01-10 5:58 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-01-10 11:53 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-01-10 12:53 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
2007-01-10 12:53 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-01-10 13:15 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, ArcosCom Linux User
2007-01-10 13:15 ` Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] ArcosCom Linux User
2007-01-10 14:08 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-01-10 13:21 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, ArcosCom Linux User
2007-01-10 13:21 ` Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] ArcosCom Linux User
2007-01-25 17:41 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, Andrew Beverley
2007-01-25 17:41 ` Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] Andrew Beverley
2007-01-31 2:58 ` [LARTC] " Pablo Neira Ayuso
2007-02-09 13:37 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, Andrew Beverley
2007-02-09 13:37 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] Andrew Beverley
2007-02-09 16:57 ` Krzysztof Oledzki
2007-02-09 17:03 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel Patrick McHardy
2007-02-09 17:03 ` Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] Patrick McHardy
2007-02-09 17:30 ` [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, Andrew Beverley
2007-02-09 17:30 ` Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues] Andrew Beverley
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=45A4E1DD.8070001@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
--cc=ole@ans.pl \
/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.