From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2] netfilter, cgroup: implement xt_cgroup2 match Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:06:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20151120210602.GD1574@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1447959171-20749-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20151120.135912.1506496112678349111.davem@davemloft.net> <20151120195625.GA1124@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vSRCXt0xDsib0f8Vp7rGGhwLAAk4Tl4PYXUEZhYo50U=; b=TYycnwNtgGqziqRkWSvl9Ex7SijuTImx7M/xh3vOWFF0RTNIGeMnIpVDRP8nw1ogYB 6boPbBmHUE91uyIrJQ4Fa2bHgp1Dw5mVVJEJzqdFe710YYqlQ+uTD+UUfJyKzdBA3utB zEUqJRU8O4BxQhumon6GRs0gNwkFAHpWoiiQU7npBqp4GPrZ2AskNVUjUu8GQWippGu1 wwqd1LYPbr5CV0kjHlhDpuPwKG7qDku4TCjMKYuNEkLPFZGh0PdqUpMMQxcP1YGmKylq Z2S/x/q/ynzCc66X9zYtcYreQ2BzVw7Rv7NYZu6eiM8fPciM8IlE/UK5Q71guEBIx07W 82tg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151120195625.GA1124@salvia> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: David Miller , kaber@trash.net, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de, nhorman@tuxdriver.com Hello, David, Pablo. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Pablo, are you ok with me merging this into net-next directly or > > would you rather I take patches 1-6 into net-next and then you can > > merge and then add patch #7 on top? > > I'd suggest you get 1-6, then I'll pull this info my tree. Thanks David! Hmm.... 1-3 will be needed to address similar issues in a different controller, so putting them in a separate branch would work best. I created a branch which contains the 1-3 on top of v4.4-rc1. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git for-4.5-ancestor-test If creating a different branch from net side is better, please let me know. > Regarding #7, I have a couple two concerns: > > 1) cgroup currently doesn't work the way users expect, ie. to perform any > reasonable firewalling. Since this relies on early demux, only a > limited number of sockets get access to the cgroup info. Right, it doesn't work well on INPUT side, so the big warning in the man page. > 2) We have traditionally rejected match2 and target2 extensions. I > guess you can accomodate the new cgroup code through the revision > iptables infrastructure, so we still use the cgroup match. I thought it would be confusing because the two are completely separate. Hmmm... okay, I'll merge it into xt_cgroup. Thanks. -- tejun