From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] Relationship between conntrack and firewall rules
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:11:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201101211511.51371.richard@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D3990E5.1010402@netfilter.org>
Am Freitag 21 Januar 2011, 14:57:57 schrieb Pablo Neira Ayuso:
> On 21/01/11 14:38, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am Freitag 21 Januar 2011, 14:25:42 schrieb Pablo Neira Ayuso:
> >>> Using the TRACE target the kernel would produce a lot of log messages
> >>> which may slow down the firewall. Especially when tracing ESTABLISHED
> >>> connections. My extension does not have this overhead.
> >>
> >> AFAICS, this is an ad-hoc optimization for a specific case that you
> >> need. So, it's basically a subset of the trace infrastructure.
> >
> > But without the overhead...
>
> I guess that one runs after defining the rule-set for first time or if
> it finds a problem in his rule-set. Not in his daily ruleset.
TRACE is a debug tool.
My extension is not it helps me to see what is going on now.
Sometimes I see a session in conntrack and have to ask me
"What the heck is this session doing here?!".
This is why I've made APPROVE and ruleid.
> >>> All I want is a friendlier output from conntrack, why should I reinvent
> >>> the wheel?
> >>
> >> Why doing things in user-space is reinventing the wheel?
> >
> > When I'm using TRACE I'll get a lot of log messages.
> > But I'm not interested in logs, I have already enough of them.
>
> I know that.
>
> I'm proposing you to make a program in user-space that can process them
> and print the output in some compact format, more useful than the current.
>
> > I want a session table where I can see what sessions are allowed by
> > which rules.
>
> I know what you want but who else in this world needs this in the Linux
> kernel.
Quite all commercial firewalls have this feature, why shouldn't netfilter have it?
> Of course, you can maintain this hack in your internal tree if you need it.
Ok, you hate my extension.
Why do you consider it as hack?
It does does not touch anything unless you are using the APPROVE target.
//richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-21 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-20 22:47 [PATCH 0/3][RFC] Relationship between conntrack and firewall rules Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:47 ` [PATCH 1/3] netfilter: add ruleid extension Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:47 ` [PATCH 2/3] netfilter: add APPROVE target Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] netfilter: implement ctnetlink_dump_ruleid() Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:47 ` [PATCH] iptables: Add APPROVE target Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:47 ` [PATCH] conntrack: Implement ruleid support Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 23:17 ` [PATCH 2/3] netfilter: add APPROVE target Jan Engelhardt
2011-01-20 23:22 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 23:27 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-01-20 23:30 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-20 22:52 ` [PATCH 0/3][RFC] Relationship between conntrack and firewall rules Jan Engelhardt
2011-01-20 23:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 10:00 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 11:13 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 11:26 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 11:56 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 12:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 12:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 13:25 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 13:38 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 13:57 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 14:11 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2011-01-21 15:09 ` Mr Dash Four
2011-01-21 0:04 ` Mr Dash Four
2011-01-21 0:10 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-01-21 0:13 ` Mr Dash Four
2011-01-21 9:58 ` secctx support for conntrack-tools [was Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] Relationship between conntrack and firewall rules] Pablo Neira Ayuso
2011-01-21 9:56 ` [PATCH 0/3][RFC] Relationship between conntrack and firewall rules Pablo Neira Ayuso
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=201101211511.51371.richard@nod.at \
--to=richard@nod.at \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.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).