From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luciano Coelho Subject: Re: [RFC] setting up throughput threshold indications to userspace Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:30:23 +0300 Message-ID: <1279517423.7097.2.camel@powerslave> References: <1279268431.1603.44.camel@powerslave> <4C40583F.40200@trash.net> <1279285829.1603.77.camel@powerslave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext Patrick McHardy , "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Samuel Ortiz , Changli Gao To: ext Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:41357 "EHLO mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752240Ab0GSFaz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:30:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 21:27 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Friday 2010-07-16 15:10, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >> > There is one problem with this solution, which is that it works in a > >> > per-connection basis (due to CONNMARK). This is not exactly what I > >> > want. I need to have this on a per-ruleset basis. For that, I need to > >> > have a MARK (variable?) which can be set independently of connections or > >> > packets. This is similar to the proposed condition match, but what is > >> > missing there is a way to set the condition with iptables itself, > >> > without requiring the userspace to change the procfs file. This could > >> > probably be achieved with a "CONDITION" target or something similar. > >> > Any ideas? > >> > >> Sounds useful. > > > >Okay, this was the kind of confirmation I wanted before jumping into the > >implementation. ;) I'll implement this target soon. > > My suggestion to have it combined with xt_condition. Yes, I also think that is the best idea. I'll implement a CONDITION target that will work together with the condition match. For now I'll use the non-final version you submitted some time ago. -- Cheers, Luca.