From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Conntrack Events Performance - Multipart Messages? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:07:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4887656B.1090504@trash.net> References: <487E24FC.60700@gmx.ch> <487F18DA.7030208@netfilter.org> <487FFBEE.90409@trash.net> <4884B068.4050306@gmx.ch> <4884B270.5010104@trash.net> <4884CC17.3020905@gmx.ch> <488740E7.3040005@gmx.ch> <48874272.1020503@trash.net> <48875887.8040209@gmx.ch> <488763F3.5020506@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Fabian Hugelshofer Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:40170 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752400AbYGWRH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:07:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <488763F3.5020506@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Fabian Hugelshofer wrote: >> Is the zeroing of the inverted tuple in nf_ct_invert_tuple really >> required? As far as I can see all fields are set by the subsequent code. > > It dependfs on the protocol family. For IPv6 its completely > unnecessary, for IPv4 the last 12 bytes of each address need > to be zeroes. We could push this down to the protocols to > behave more optimally (actually something I started and didn't > finish some time ago). Actually that really is necessary because we have padding in the tuple on at least ARM.