From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 03:01:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 03:00:46 -0400 Received: from cx97923-a.phnx3.az.home.com ([24.9.112.194]:58628 "EHLO grok.yi.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 03:00:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3AF4FB57.BA55A651@candelatech.com> Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:20:55 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17-14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: linux-kernel , Alan Cox , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] arp_filter patch for 2.4.4 kernel. In-Reply-To: <3AF4720F.35574FDD@candelatech.com> <15092.32371.139915.110859@pizda.ninka.net> <3AF49617.1B3C48AF@candelatech.com> <15092.37426.648280.631914@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > > Ben Greear writes: > > No idea, haven't tried to use netfilter. With this patch, though, > > it's as easy as: > > I know, the problem is if some existing facility can be made > to do it, I'd rather it be done that way. Would requiring netfilter to be used slow down the fast path for packets in any way? The current arp-filter code will not, as far as I can tell, and if the netfilter overhead is significant, that may be a good reason to accept the patch, or the alternative one proposed a few mails back... -- Ben Greear President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear