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 10:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: <47A2E8AF.7070609@trash.net> References: <20080130185847.693274384@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <20080130190127.400747893@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <47A27481.7080700@netfilter.org> <47A2E1EF.8000006@trash.net> 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]:42479 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752914AbYBAJjB (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:39:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47A2E1EF.8000006@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > 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. Generally speaking, conntrackd doesn't matter here in my opinion, features are either present in the libraries or have to be implemented in users of the same. Demanding that code uses foreign non-library code in a execve-fashion is just not reasonable.