From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [nft PATCH RFC] monitor: Support printing processes which caused the event Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 19:59:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20170510175920.GG16263@breakpoint.cc> References: <20170510105510.891-1-phil@nwl.cc> <20170510112724.GD16263@breakpoint.cc> <20170510113855.GD29824@salvia> <20170510115748.GE16263@breakpoint.cc> <20170510143946.GX20805@orbyte.nwl.cc> <20170510145437.GA17305@breakpoint.cc> <20170510151131.GY20805@orbyte.nwl.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Phil Sutter , Florian Westphal , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([146.0.238.67]:48798 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753683AbdEJR7v (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2017 13:59:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170510151131.GY20805@orbyte.nwl.cc> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Phil Sutter wrote: > > I don't find it ugly, but alternatively we could add a new type of info > > sent at the beginning of the commit phase (before all the table/rule etc > > updates) and include it there. > > You mean as a separate netlink message? Then we would have to map that > message to the actual notification, no? Or do you think it's sufficient > to cache the last PID/name received and use it for the monitor messages > until an update to them comes in? I didn't check yet but all the notifications should contain the current generation id and we also send a genid update after a transaction is done so I suspect its enough to emit the name once per transaction.