From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE49AC433F5 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 12:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA0D60C49 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 12:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236101AbhJZNB1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:01:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34800 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236100AbhJZNB1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:01:27 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:520::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26C59C061767; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mfM2c-0006pX-Hg; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:58:58 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:58:58 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: Florian Westphal , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, lschlesinger@drivenets.com, dsahern@kernel.org, crosser@average.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] vrf: run conntrack only in context of lower/physdev for locally generated packets Message-ID: <20211026125858.GA18032@breakpoint.cc> References: <20211025141400.13698-1-fw@strlen.de> <20211025141400.13698-3-fw@strlen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > If the motion for these hooks in the driver is to match for 'oif vrf', > now that there is an egress hook, it might make more sense to filter > from there based on the interface rather than adding these hook calls > from the vrf driver? > > I wonder if, in the future, it makes sense to entirely disable these > hooks in the vrf driver and rely on egress hook? Agree, it would be better to support ingress+egress hhoks from vrf so vrf specific filtering can be done per-device. I don't think we can just remove the existing NF_HOOK()s in vrf though. We could add toggles to disable them, but I'm not sure how to best expose that (ip link attribute, ethtool, sysctl ...)...?