From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Schillstrom Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 2/3] NETFILTER module xt_hmark, new target for HASH based fwmark Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:32:03 +0100 Message-ID: <201202091932.03785.hans@schillstrom.com> References: <1327675303-9059-1-git-send-email-hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com> <1327675303-9059-3-git-send-email-hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com> <20120208002743.GA29189@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hans Schillstrom , kaber@trash.net, jengelh@medozas.de, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120208002743.GA29189@1984> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 01:27:43 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:41:42PM +0100, Hans Schillstrom wrote: [snip] > > +#if defined(CONFIG_NF_NAT) > > + if (ct && test_bit(IP_CT_IS_REPLY, &ct->status)) { > > + struct nf_conntrack_tuple *otuple; > > + > > + otuple = &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].tuple; > > + /* > > + * On the "return flow", to get the original address > > + */ > > + if ((ct->status & IPS_DST_NAT) && > > + (info->flags & XT_HMARK_USE_DNAT)) { > > + addr1 = (__force u32) otuple->dst.u3.in.s_addr; > > + dnatport = otuple->dst.u.udp.port; > > + } > > + if ((ct->status & IPS_SRC_NAT) && > > + (info->flags & XT_HMARK_USE_SNAT)) { > > + addr2 = (__force u32) otuple->src.u3.in.s_addr; > > + snatport = otuple->src.u.udp.port; > > + } > > You can make this much more simple. > > Allow the user to tell your HMARK target to use the conntrack > information instead. > > My opinion is that the user must have total control on the target > behaviour through the configuration options. The number of internal > by-default decisions have to be kept up to the minimum, otherwise > the behaviour of the target may seem obscure. > > > + } > > +#endif > > + /* user space tool ensures that prmask is zero when method is L3*/ While dealing with fragmentation in ipvs, an idea run into my head... why not take care of fragments from nfct_reasm in L3_4 mode ? OK it might be an obscure behaviour but on the other hand people expect that fragments is handled by netfilter... /Hans