From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Subject: Re: xt_connlimit kernel 20070620
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:51:38 +0200
Message-ID: <467A9E8A.4080202@trash.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706200039290.5731@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
	<4678F7A2.6090203@netfilter.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706201224490.5731@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
	<46790A58.9050106@netfilter.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706201328260.5731@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
	<46791704.4090609@netfilter.org> <467921FD.8000909@trash.net>
	<467A9BA7.1090707@netfilter.org> <467A9CC9.3020605@trash.net>
	<467A9E3A.3060905@netfilter.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>,
	Netfilter Developer Mailing List <netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <467A9E3A.3060905@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

Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>
>>>Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But the event API has the DESTROY transition. There are three kind of
>>>>>events: NEW, UPDATE and DESTROY. Just wait for DESTROY events to release
>>>>>the entry from the hashtable.
>>>>
>>>>Thats not a bad idea, but I always considered the notifier chains
>>>>overkill just for ctnetlink and thought about replacing them by
>>>>simple hooks. Adding another user for them would need some good
>>>>justification, also since it quite heavily adds to the overhead
>>>>for packet processing.
>>>
>>>The call_chain would be called only to catch DESTROY events (at timer
>>>expiration). No need to register notifications for the the event NEW
>>>since it can be get from the packet itself from ctinfo.
>>
>>We only have a single notifier chain.
> 
> 
> Worth to split them into three chains?


For connlimit? No.