From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] netfilter: Create revision 2 of xt_hashlimit to support higher pps rates Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:58:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20160925125845.GA11537@salvia> References: <20160922164344.GB20423@akamai.com> <57E42571.1060502@akamai.com> <20160925113501.GD8331@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Engelhardt , kaber@trash.net, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, johunt@akamai.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pai.vishwain@gmail.com To: Vishwanath Pai Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:50654 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966277AbcIYM67 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2016 08:58:59 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C643ED08C for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29253DA84D for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254BBDA81C for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:58:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160925113501.GD8331@salvia> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 01:35:01PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:39:45PM -0400, Vishwanath Pai wrote: > > Thanks for pointing this out, I will reorder the fields to: > > > > struct hashlimit_cfg2 { > > __u64 avg; /* Average secs between packets * scale */ > > __u64 burst; > > __u32 mode; /* bitmask of XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_* */ > > > > This should fix the hole and avoid padding. > > I have manually mangled this here, and applied, to get this change in > this in merge window. > > I also have to revert the rename of XT_HASHLIMIT_SCALE to > XT_HASHLIMIT_SCALE_v1. This is exposed through uapi, this change would > break userspace. This requires that you rebase and resubmit your userspace patches for iptables though. Thanks for your patience to get this in, btw.