From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, pablo@netfilter.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kaber@trash.net, mleitner@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC] netfilter: ip6_tables: use reasm skb for matching
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:44:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131030144400.GE16615@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131030141354.GB1456@minipsycho.orion>
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> >This is a bit backwards, I think.
> >- We gather frags
> >- Then we invoke ip6t_do_table for each individual fragment
> >
> >So basically your patch is equivalent to
> >for_each_frag( )
> > ip6t_do_table(reassembled_skb)
> >
> >Which makes no sense to me - why traverse the ruleset n times with the same
> >packet?
>
> Because each fragment need to be pushed through separately.
Why? AFAIU we only need to ensure that (in forwarding case) we
send out the original fragments instead of the reassembled packet.
> What different approach would you suggest?
I am sure that current behaviour is intentional, so I'd first like to
understand WHY this was implemented this way.
Also, this would change very long standing behaviour so one might argue that
this is a no-go anyway.
What is the exact problem that this is supposed to solve?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-30 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-30 10:50 [patch net-next RFC] netfilter: ip6_tables: use reasm skb for matching Jiri Pirko
2013-10-30 13:41 ` Florian Westphal
2013-10-30 14:13 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-10-30 14:44 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2013-11-04 15:22 ` Jiri Pirko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131030144400.GE16615@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu \
--cc=mleitner@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).