From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] netfilter: conntrack: remove timer from ecache extension Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:14:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20140328111440.GA12728@localhost> References: <1395943238-29319-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <20140328103203.GA12225@localhost> <20140328111031.GG21741@breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Westphal Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:44861 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752071AbaC1LOp (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:14:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140328111031.GG21741@breakpoint.cc> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:10:31PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > I'm mainly interested if you think timer removal is worthwile, > > > it works well in practice from usability POV. > > > > Thanks for looking again into this. We definitely have to get rid of > > that timer. > > > > Regarding the new flag, perhaps we can avoid exposing this to > > userspace? I mean, we can define some mask of internal flags that we > > don't include via dump_status in ctnetlink. > > What is your rationale for supressing this information? > [ or, why is exposing this to userspace bad? ] I think that flag provides no useful information to userspace. > Is it so we don't have to keep dummy flag when we find a different > solution later? Right, that's another good reason not to expose that information to userspace.