From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Chris Taylor <chtaylo4@gmail.com>
Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Notification of new/destroyed connection
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:39:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45E577F3.1070003@netfilter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba7529fb0702271449p460843fag8528aab89261ee84@mail.gmail.com>
Chris Taylor wrote:
> Then I saw the notification chains and I thought about makeing a
> notification block and registering it with
> nf_conntrack_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb). I couldn't
> find the initial listing of the anticiapted values for the events and
> the void* p, but I saw examples in
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c So I then turned my attention to
> include/linux/netfilter/nf_conntrack_common.h and saw the difference
> b/n ip_conntrack_expect_events and ip_conntrack_events, namely that
> ip_conntrack_expect_events only has IPEXP_NEW.
If you have to check for new and destroyed connections, just register a
module that listens to IPCT_NEW and IPCT_DESTROY events,
ip_conntrack_events in nf_conntrack_netlink is a good example. Forget
about ip_conntrack_expect_events since that functions handles
expectation events, AFAICS this is not what you want.
> Am I correct to assume that if I need to do some setup in advance of a
> connection establishment, then I should subscribe via the
> nf_conntrack_register_expect_notifier and wait for a IPEXP_NEW event?
No, this is for expectations. I suggest you to have a look at [1].
> What happenes if I do the setup and the connection is never
> established? Will I get notified of that via the callback registered
> with nf_conntrack_register_notifier with a IPCT_DESTROY event?
Then the connection will expire after a certain timeout, no need to
worry about this scenario. You'll get IPCT_DESTROY anyway. You can tune
the timeout if you think that they are too long.
> Am I better off doing this with nf_conntrack or ip_conntrack? What's
> the difference?
nf_conntrack is layer 3 independent, ip_conntrack is obsoleted and is
scheduled to be removed in 2.6.22 if my mind serves well. So go
nf_conntrack.
> Am I headed in the correct direction?
Basically yes.
[1] http://people.netfilter.org/pablo/docs/
--
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of
great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-02-28 12:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-02-27 22:49 Notification of new/destroyed connection Chris Taylor
2007-02-28 12:39 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-07-12 8:00 Kerry Ó Cuanacháin
2007-07-12 9:13 Kerry Ó Cuanacháin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45E577F3.1070003@netfilter.org \
--to=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=chtaylo4@gmail.com \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).