CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS

CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS

[Oleg]

  Hi, all.

net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
simple file interface with anything else?

-- 
Nemanov Oleg

Re: CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS

[Florian Westphal]

Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru> wrote:
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
> kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
> simple file interface with anything else?

proc has several drawbacks vs. ctnetlink:
 - not extensible
 - doesn't have ability to query for particular items
 - no add/delete support
 - no event notification (e.g. conntrack -E)

Re: CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROCFS

[Oleg]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:22:09PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack procfs file is marked as obsolete in the recent
> > kernels. What's wrong with it? Or it's simply a new fashion to replace
> > simple file interface with anything else?
> 
> proc has several drawbacks vs. ctnetlink:
>  - not extensible

In the what way?
Sorry, but i think that limitations isn't in proc, but in a human fantasy.

>  - doesn't have ability to query for particular items

What about something like:

exec 3<>nf_conntrack; echo show tcp dport 12345 >&3; cat <&3
HERE_WE_GET_NEEDED_ENTRIES
exec 3<&-

?

>  - no add/delete support

What about simple:

echo add ENTRY > nf_conntrack
echo delete ENTRY > nf_conntrack

?

>  - no event notification (e.g. conntrack -E)

Florian, are you seriosly? What's wrong with simple:

cat nf_conntrack_event

?

Moreover, all things i have wrote save already existent scripts works.

May be i don't understand anything? Please correct me if so.

P.S. netlink is really cool thing, but i think we go in the wrong way.

-- 
Nemanov Oleg