From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: Transmit mark during connection destruction event Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: <479F3943.2050900@netfilter.org> References: <20080128231323.GA24226@localhost> <479F2C54.8030109@trash.net> <479F3183.6030905@netfilter.org> <479F2EDD.2000000@trash.net> <479F3526.10306@netfilter.org> <479F36DD.6030000@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Leblond , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:36612 "EHLO us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754839AbYA2Odt (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:33:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <479F36DD.6030000@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >>> I agree with Eric, its a useful option for avoiding overhead in >>> userspace, and what counts in the end is the accumulated overhead >>> of both kernel and userspace. If userspace can avoid dealing with >>> tuples and complicated bookkeeping it can read messages faster, >>> thus avoiding recv-queue overflows. >> >> Then, dump the id but not the mark if he wants to identify a conntrack. > > That probably won't help since the ID is chosen arbitarily, while the > mark allows you to encode information. I don't see the big problem here, > it only increases the message size if marks are actually used. Make sense. > I'm also sure you could decrease overhead far more by choosing a proper > allocation size without affecting functionality thats apparently useful > for some people. Please, elaborate this a bit. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers