From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [ULOGD RFC 08/30] NFCT: rework Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:10:07 +0100 Message-ID: <47A2E1EF.8000006@trash.net> References: <20080130185847.693274384@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <20080130190127.400747893@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <47A27481.7080700@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: heitzenberger@astaro.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, holger@eitzenberger.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:41836 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372AbYBAJKO (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:10:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47A27481.7080700@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > heitzenberger@astaro.com wrote: >> Also implement garbage collection to account for the fact that netlink >> messages are sometimes lost (ENOBUFS) on busy sites. > > Well, this NFCT stuff is a big hack. I'm sure that you have solved > several issues with those patches but sorry, I don't like them at all. > There's several parts of conntrackd that we could use to rework this eg. > an implementation of a generic hash table in conntrackd that we can > reuse and nfnl_recv_msgs looks very similar to nfnl_catch, etc. Also, > the ENOBUFS handling is still a mess. I'm better keeping back these NFCT > patches. I'll try to give some spins to it. > What exactly are your objections? From what I can see it simply improves performance of the existing code and cleans it up a bit.