Re: Extending connmark to 64 bits

[Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz>]

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 04:00 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Matt Bennett <Matt.Bennett@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> > Currently we have a number of router features making use of connection
> > tracking. As such we now require more than the 32 bits connmark
> > currently has. Our first inclination is to extend this field to 64 bits
> > and update related areas of code appropriately.
> > 
> > The major question we have is whether there is a reason this field is 32
> > bits (performance reasons or other)?
> 
> Its meant to align with skb->mark.

I thought that could be the case. Probably the wrong mailing-list to be
asking this on but is increasing the number of bits for the skb->mark
then a possibility? The number of bits available for marking becomes the
limiting factor when you have a number of applications needing to mark
packets.
> 
> > If it is not possible to extend this field then perhaps there are other
> > options (beyond disabling some features making use of connection
> > tracking)?
> 
> Have you looked at using conntrack labels?
> 
> Its a 128bit storage area.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html