Re: Performance issue due to constant "modprobes"

[Ed W <lists@wildgooses.com>]

> -1 to the user for not reading it ;-)

I guess my point wasn't clear - I HAD already read it.  Just saying
thanks for being very patient with me and assuming otherwise


>> Yes, although these modules are being probed for even on a zero
>> (missing) input to iptables-restore.  However, that seems consistent
>> with a v1.4.10 iptables --enable-static based binary?  Presumably this
>> just probes everything?
> 
> Yes, and that which does not exist in the kernel you pay with a modprobe 
> call then. That would not only include SET, but also extensions long 
> obsoleted, such as libipt_unclean's counterpart.

Hmm, for the moment I'm happy to simply patch out all modprobe calls in
xtables.c, but there may come a time when I need more flexibility.  Does
anyone care enough about this to consider a more clever solution?

The issue would be that someone might genuinely want to forward/backward
port modules between kernel releases, however, perhaps it would be
reasonable to offer a compile time option for use with --enable-static
which limits compiled in modules to those which match a kernel version?

I can see lots of negatives here - does anyone have a better idea?

Thanks

Ed W